Do Protestants by and large think Catholics are 'legalistic?'

[distracted]

husband often has said, that he ‘doubts’ God would cast someone into hell over missing mass, even if it was willfull. not so much for missing Mass per se, but for losing the grace that would have come… it is lack of grace that gets us into Hell or Purgatory (rather than going directly into Heaven)… The thing that bothers me about someone missing Mass wilfully is that… If someone knows how awesome Jesus is and doesn’t go to be with Him (and the angels & saints, who are said to preside over all Masses)… then s/he obviously thinks something else is more “awesome” & that is idolatry… and God destroyed cities (OT) over that… as i’ve said on CAF b4… all sin is idolatry: loving someone/ something mroe than God.

staying out of hell can cause a person to feel mechanical about Discipleship. We are to be cheerful followers of Christ, not doing so to only avoid hell. (although, that would be a byproduct of following Christ, indeed)

yeah, it really bites when you don’t have access to daily Mass… or if you don’t get along with the priest or whatever… (i’ve had problems with more than a couple priests in my lifetime)…

I guess you don’t live close to the Church anymore? (or do you and priest hate each other? )

 

[distracted]

What people should liken this to is…imagine being married and your spouse tells you he/she loves you, but the actions show the absolute opposite… you just described virtually every romantic relationship I’ve ever had in life!!

, He wants a relationship with us. If we say we love Him, we should naturally want to show that through the way we live our lives. God knows our hearts, but if we say we love Him, we should want to show Him.

true…

It seems that life forces a person (as it were) to love Jesus…

because there is no real love in the human realm… to think you have found it is to lie to yourslef… Jesus is the only one who proved his great love for us, who never leaves us or forsakes us…

I always like to stress the value of spending time with Jesus at the Real Presence… I don’t know how anyone really stays close to Jesus (and continues to obey his commandments as he should) without spending time with Jesus in that particular way… & frankly, i don’t know anyone who DOES… (true, i don’t know very many people… tend to isolate…). Anyway… its amazing how often i am the only one in the Church with Jesus if a Mass is not going on… What is it with Catholics these days?? (or “Catholics”)

I like to go There & just listen… it is sometimes downright SCARY… and sometimes i have no idea WHY it is scary… because haven’t committed any mortal sins… (etc)… but anyway… i also heard that the souls in Purgatory are There, near the Tabernacle with Jesus… Maybe that’s why i feel so… well, can’t find the word, but let’s just say i don’t feel too comfortable, to say the least… I feel i am in Purgatory when i am There… never heard any other person say this but i totally believe it… Maybe i need to ask a priest about this because the more i think about it, the more curious i am… (just have to find the “right” priest… I seem to have this knack for finding Fr. Wrong…).

 

[jmcrae]

I am a former Roman Catholic. One of the big reasons I rejected Rome was because of the overemphasis on legalism. An example would be the ban on methotrexate (MTX) for treating tubal ectopic preganacy. In an tubal ectopic pregnancy, the embryo has zero chance of survival. MTX would dissolve the embryo and save the woman’s life and her fallopian tube. Roman Catholics label that murder.

What would you call it?

It is absolutely never okay to kill someone on purpose, even if you know for sure that she is going to die by accident or in the ordinary course of nature at a later time.

 

[distracted]

What would you call it?

It is absolutely never okay to kill someone on purpose, even if you know for sure that she is going to die by accident or in the ordinary course of nature at a later time.

I’m pretty sure the one you’re responding to is WRONG on this abortion thing (tubal preg termination). It is my understand that the Church approves of abortion to save the physical life of the mother…

If a tubal preg is NOT terminated, BOTH will die…

I guess i should have written this post to that Poster…

 

[jmcrae]

I’m pretty sure the one you’re responding to is WRONG on this abortion thing (tubal preg termination). It is my understand that the Church approves of abortion to save the physical life of the mother…

If a tubal preg is NOT terminated, BOTH will die…

The teaching is this:

If, in the course of saving the mother’s life, her child accidentally dies, this is not a sin. Even if you knew ahead of time that the child was going to die by accident.

If you deliberately and actively kill the child in order to save the mother’s life, this is a sin, however.

The reason is that it is not up to us to decide who lives and who dies. We must leave room for God to provide a miracle.

Sometimes, miracles do happen. St. Gianna’s child survived.

 

[distracted]

The teaching is this:

If, in the course of saving the mother’s life, her child accidentally dies, this is not a sin. Even if you knew ahead of time that the child was going to die by accident.

If you deliberately and actively kill the child in order to save the mother’s life, this is a sin, however.

The reason is that it is not up to us to decide who lives and who dies. We must leave room for God to provide a miracle.

Sometimes, miracles do happen. St. Gianna’s child survived.

i don’t believe the Church teaches this… because in ectopic pregnancies, BOTH will die if an abortion is not done… unless they took the child out of the womb and implanted it in another woman… which, frankly, i don’t know why they dont do… or if they do, have never heard of …

 

[DrPiano]

i don’t believe the Church teaches this… because in ectopic pregnancies, BOTH will die if an abortion is not done… unless they took the child out of the womb and implanted it in another woman… which, frankly, i don’t know why they dont do… or if they do, have never heard of …

You’re not forbidden from removing the damaged fallopian tube (with the growing child inside). In this procedure the child would die but not from a direct act with the intent of killing the child.

You are forbidden to do something with the direct intent of killing the child (a direct abortion). jmcrae’s answer is exactly what I’ve heard in a number of places and I do believe its the Church’s stance.

 

[jmcrae]

i don’t believe the Church teaches this… because in ectopic pregnancies, BOTH will die if an abortion is not done… unless they took the child out of the womb and implanted it in another woman… which, frankly, i don’t know why they dont do… or if they do, have never heard of …

First, the child is actually not in the womb - this is what causes the problem with the fallopian tube.

Second, I’m not sure what the Church’s stance on implantation would be, under those circumstances, but as far as I know, it is physically impossible. (And if it were possible, then why not simply implant the child into his own mother’s womb?)

 

[SSTeacher]

**Hi Mick; **

Hi whatevergirl,

I’m glad you brought this up here. Actually, Catholics don’t view slips as causing one to lose his/her salvation–not at all. Now, mortal sin, being a bigger deal than a venial sin, has three components and all three have to present in order for a mortal sin to occur. One, it has to be of a “grievous matter.” That means it has to be a big deal, like taking somebody’s life or doing something that can never be changed. Two, there has to have been “sufficient reflection.” That means you had to have thought about it, it doesn’t just happen. You don’t just wake up one morning and say, “Oh my goodness! I’ve created a mortal sin.” The** third **is that there has to have been “full consent of the will.” This means that you really have to choose to do it. Again, this is the idea that you don’t accidentally fall in to mortal sin. So, we don’t just ‘slip up’ into mortal sin, or serious sin.

That’s logical and reasonable. By the way, as Catholics do not consider it possible to have any assurance of salvation this side of the grave (viewing such a thought as presumptuous) I don’t think the question as to whether one can “lose one’s salvation” can make any sense within the Catholic context can it?

So not all sins are created equal. If I steal a lollipop from someone, is that the same as stealing millions of dollars from my company? The two are equal in the sense that both violate my relationship with God, and I’m betraying Him on some level. But, the hurt that I cause to stealing millions of dollars from my company will be far worse than stealing a piece of candy from my neighbor. Although, I would be very angry if someone stole my chocolate bar if I really was in the mood for chocolate that day!

I agree that some sins are greater than others. As much can be inferred from the exchange between Jesus and Pilate, scil:

Pilate: Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?

Jesus: You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above. For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin.

I can easily agree with Catholic teaching that there is what we might call a hierarchy of sins. Perhaps where we would find ourselves forced to disagree is at the point that the Catholic Church takes this notion and arbitrarily decides which sins are “mortal” and which sins are “venial” and goes on to impose a hierarchy of consequences. It is here, perhaps, that some outside the Catholic Church might perceive vestiges of legalism.

**I think the GREATEST misconception between Protestants and Catholics, on the Protestant side…is that they tend to think we Catholics concentrate more on sin, than the mercy of God. That couldn’t be further from the truth. We know that if we are repentant, and contrite, and ask God for mercy, He is quick to give it…and help us improve. **

Perhaps some Catholics do concentrate more on sin than on the mercy of God? If so, that would explain why Protestants have the misconception.

Hope that makes sense.

Everything you wrote makes sense. I appreciate your friendly informative approach.

Gratefully,
Mick

 

[jmcrae]

I can easily agree with Catholic teaching that there is what we might call a hierarchy of sins. Perhaps where we would find ourselves forced to disagree is at the point that the Catholic Church takes this notion and arbitrarily decides which sins are “mortal” and which sins are “venial” and goes on to impose a hierarchy of consequences. It is here, perhaps, that some outside the Catholic Church might perceive vestiges of legalism.

There is nothing that the Catholic Church states about Hell, that Jesus did not say plainly, first.

I would direct your attention particularly to, first of all, the Sermon on the Mount, which you can find in chapters 5, 6, and 7 of St. Matthew’s Gospel, and then later in the same book the 25th chapter. Jesus had no concept of “once saved, always saved.” He was very clear that all sin has eternal consequences, for both believers and unbelievers.

He speaks of those who call him Lord, and even do miracles in HIs name, but who, because of their omissions, go to Hell. (They didn’t even actually sin; they simply failed to do good when the opportunity to do good was given to them.)

I don’t know about you, but I don’t even have enough faith to be able to do miracles in Christ’s name. And if that amount of faith is still not enough, without avoiding to commit sin, and making sure to do good works, then it seems pretty clear that I can’t rest on the idea that my faith will save me. I have to look seriously at my behaviour and my attitudes, as well.

 

[SSTeacher]

There is nothing that the Catholic Church states about Hell, that Jesus did not say plainly, first.

I would direct your attention particularly to, first of all, the Sermon on the Mount, which you can find in chapters 5, 6, and 7 of St. Matthew’s Gospel, and then later in the same book the 25th chapter. Jesus had no concept of “once saved, always saved.” He was very clear that all sin has eternal consequences, for both believers and unbelievers.

He speaks of those who call him Lord, and even do miracles in HIs name, but who, because of their omissions, go to Hell. (They didn’t even actually sin; they simply failed to do good when the opportunity to do good was given to them.)

I don’t know about you, but I don’t even have enough faith to be able to do miracles in Christ’s name. And if that amount of faith is still not enough, without avoiding to commit sin, and making sure to do good works, then it seems pretty clear that I can’t rest on the idea that my faith will save me. I have to look seriously at my behaviour and my attitudes, as well.

Whatever you say.

Respectfully,
Mick

 

[whatevergirl]

First, the child is actually not in the womb - this is what causes the problem with the fallopian tube.

Second, I’m not sure what the Church’s stance on implantation would be, under those circumstances, but as far as I know, it is physically impossible. (And if it were possible, then why not simply implant the child into his own mother’s womb?)

A coworker of mine had a fallopian tube removed, when she went through this. I think that there are other options than aborting the baby.

 

[whatevergirl]

Hi whatevergirl,

That’s logical and reasonable. By the way, as Catholics do not consider it possible to have any assurance of salvation this side of the grave (viewing such a thought as presumptuous) I don’t think the question as to whether one can “lose one’s salvation” can make any sense within the Catholic context can it?

I agree that some sins are greater than others. As much can be inferred from the exchange between Jesus and Pilate, scil:

Pilate: Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?

Jesus: You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above. For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin.

I can easily agree with Catholic teaching that there is what we might call a hierarchy of sins. Perhaps where we would find ourselves forced to disagree is at the point that the Catholic Church takes this notion and arbitrarily decides which sins are “mortal” and which sins are “venial” and goes on to impose a hierarchy of consequences. It is here, perhaps, that some outside the Catholic Church might perceive vestiges of legalism.

Perhaps some Catholics do concentrate more on sin than on the mercy of God? If so, that would explain why Protestants have the misconception.

Everything you wrote makes sense. I appreciate your friendly informative approach.

Gratefully,
Mick

I will reply once you teach me how to divide the quotes up like that. Ugh, people have taught me on here before, but I must be a slow learner when it comes to this…your help would be appreciated.:tiphat:

 

[whatevergirl]

Whatever you say.

Respectfully,
Mick

Aw, don’t say…‘whatever you say.’

Please tell us, what in jmcrae’s post didn’t seem to resonate with you?

 

[SSTeacher]

Aw, don’t say…‘whatever you say.’

Please tell us, what in jmcrae’s post didn’t seem to resonate with you?

OK, since you ask. I had been merely speculating as to why Protestants might think Catholics are legalistic and along comes jmcrae apparently eager to force me into the position of having to defend the doctrine of “once saved, always saved,” a doctrine with which I’ve never agreed. I’m an Evangelical but I’m on the Arminian side. So, “Whatever you say” seemed an appropriate response.

What would you have done?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[whatevergirl]

OK, since you ask. I had been merely speculating as to why Protestants might think Catholics are legalistic and along comes jmcrae apparently eager to force me into the position of having to defend the doctrine of “once saved, always saved,” a doctrine with which I’ve never agreed. I’m an Evangelical but I’m on the Arminian side. So, “Whatever you say” seemed an appropriate response.

What would you have done?

Curiously,
Mick

Oh I see…whatever you say just typically sounds like a ‘I don’t agree with you, but you know it all so…’ kind of remark. LOL

 

[jmcrae]

OK, since you ask. I had been merely speculating as to why Protestants might think Catholics are legalistic and along comes jmcrae apparently eager to force me into the position of having to defend the doctrine of “once saved, always saved,” a doctrine with which I’ve never agreed. I’m an Evangelical but I’m on the Arminian side. So, “Whatever you say” seemed an appropriate response.

What would you have done?

Curiously,
Mick

I think in a round-about way I was saying that certain Protestants might think we’re legalistic, because they themselves are under the impression that Jesus left us an “anything goes” religion.

 

[SSTeacher]

jmcrae;4908533:

There is nothing that the Catholic Church states about Hell, that Jesus did not say plainly, first.

I would direct your attention particularly to, first of all, the Sermon on the Mount, which you can find in chapters 5, 6, and 7 of St. Matthew’s Gospel, and then later in the same book the 25th chapter. Jesus had no concept of “once saved, always saved.” He was very

clear that all sin has eternal consequences, for both believers and unbelievers.

He speaks of those who call him Lord, and even do miracles in HIs name, but who, because of their omissions, go to Hell. (They didn’t even actually sin; they simply failed to do good when the opportunity to do good was given to them.)

I don’t know about you, but I don’t even have enough faith to be able to do miracles in Christ’s name. And if that amount of faith is still not enough, without avoiding to commit sin, and making sure to do good works, then it seems pretty clear that I can’t rest on the idea that my faith will save me. I have to look seriously at my behaviour and my attitudes, *as well.*Whatever you say.

Respectfully,
Mick

Aw, don’t say…‘whatever you say.’

Please tell us, what in jmcrae’s post didn’t seem to resonate with you?

OK, since you ask. I had been merely speculating as to why Protestants might think Catholics are legalistic and along comes jmcrae apparently eager to force me into the position of having to defend the doctrine of “once saved, always saved,” a doctrine with which I’ve never agreed. I’m an Evangelical but I’m on the Arminian side. So, “Whatever you say” seemed an appropriate response.

What would you have done?

Curiously,
Mick

Oh I see…whatever you say just typically sounds like a ‘I don’t agree with you, but you know it all so…’ kind of remark. LOL

Hi jmcrae,

Whatevergirl is quite right. I should have something like, “Thanks for your contribution” and signed off respectfully and that would have just as easily enabled me to withdraw from any exchange that I felt was off–topic or with which I felt uncomfortable. My choice of phrase was a poor one as I now see that from it may be drawn a dismissive or even offensive inference. I ought to be minding my Ps and Qs a bit more carefully during Lent. Please forgive me.

I’d like to respond to your earlier comments.

There is nothing that the Catholic Church states about Hell, that Jesus did not say plainly, first.

Based on what I know, I agree with you.

I would direct your attention particularly to, first of all, the Sermon on the Mount, which you can find in chapters 5, 6, and 7 of St. Matthew’s Gospel, and then later in the same book the 25th chapter. Jesus had no concept of “once saved, always saved.” He was very clear that all sin has eternal consequences, for both believers and unbelievers.

Thank you. I’m familiar with both passages and I offer no argument to what you’ve stated above. However, perhaps you will concede that Jesus designated Saint Paul to “iron out some practical and theological details” and it is Saint Paul’s writings to which Calvinists point as the source for their doctrine of Eternal Security. It’s perhaps relevant to note, here, that when Christians outside the Catholic Church criticize the Catholic doctrine of purgatory on the grounds that Jesus never mentioned it, Catholics sometimes cite part of the first letter Saint Paul wrote to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 3:15) as proof of the existence of purgatory.

He speaks of those who call him Lord, and even do miracles in HIs name, but who, because of their omissions, go to Hell. (They didn’t even actually sin; they simply failed to do good when the opportunity to do good was given to them.)

Indeed. This is an arresting and disturbing passage. It’s clearly easy to grow into a person who has no love and to do so without even realizing it.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t even have enough faith to be able to do miracles in Christ’s name. And if that amount of faith is still not enough, without avoiding to commit sin, and making sure to do good works, then it seems pretty clear that I can’t rest on the idea that my faith will save me. I have to look seriously at my behaviour and my attitudes, as well.

I believe that I’m saved by my faith i.e. trusting in the Lord to save me. But if what I declare to be my faith amounts to no more than lip service then there would be no visible evidence of my faith. Prayer, fasting and almsgiving would be concepts completely alien to me because I’d be spending most of my time sitting in an armchair watching TV and stuffing my face with pizza and chocolate cake and trying to feel pious during the commercial breaks and supposing that any pious feeling I managed to work up amounted to real faith. If that were the case then my “faith” would be the dead faith about which Saint James warns. Such faith is dead because it isn’t accompanied by love. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love as Saint Paul wrote to the Galatians.

Grace and peace,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

I think in a round-about way I was saying that certain Protestants might think we’re legalistic, because they themselves are under the impression that Jesus left us an “anything goes” religion.

I wouldn’t argue with that.

Ecumenically,
Mick

 

[whatevergirl]

I think in a round-about way I was saying that certain Protestants might think we’re legalistic, because they themselves are under the impression that Jesus left us an “anything goes” religion.

That, and they sometimes forget that God tells us to love the sinner, but hate the sin. I think that there is this notion that we should accept all behaviors under the guise of not appearing judgemental, and loving the sinner…but, to allow people we love to just do whatever, without knowing the Truth, that really isn’t true love. It’s just pacifying people, or being PC. I am glad you all have chimed into this thread…you bring up such interesting points.

SSTeacher, you are too kind to correct your statement…I didn’t mean to come across as nit picking. lol I was just hopeful that you weren’t closing yourself off to discussion–you have been a great addition here, to the thread. Thank you for your insights…now, become Catholic soon…we will be waiting.