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

[SSTeacher]

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.

Thanks, whatevergirl. You are very gracious.

When I think of the word legalism, I think of the Pharisees, who were hypocrits, and believed in following certain laws over being kind and loving to one’s neighbor.

I would suggest that the legalist painstakingly builds his (or her) set of priorities and values based not upon the spirit of the law (which the legalist must necessarily ignore) but upon his or her subjective understanding of the letter of the law. The pattern of behavior slowly takes shape and may be modified along the way but once it’s finalized the legalist pugnaciously insists that it ought to normative for everybody. I guess that’s why American Evangelicals might see Catholicism as legalistic. Catholicism formally intrudes into the lives of Catholics (or, at least, is perceived by some outsiders to intrude) in the same way that certain individuals within American Evangelical circles grauitously intrude into the business of other believers. So I submit that the central characteristic of the legalist isn’t that he or she “majors on the minors” although it’s highly likely that this will be the case. It is that the legalist makes other people the prisoners of his or her expectations. I guess we can agree that legalists are a pain in the Dordogne whichever side of the Reformation one encounters them (apologies to any legalist who happens to view this post – I didn’t mean you, I meant the others.).

Ecumenically,
Mick

 

[jmcrae]

I guess we can agree that legalists are a pain in the Dordogne whichever side of the Reformation one encounters them (apologies to any legalist who happens to view this post – I didn’t mean you, I meant the others.).

I think someone who is legalistic would become very frustrated with the Catholic Church, because although on the surface we do, in fact, have all these rules (YAY, rules!!), when it comes to actual practice, the rules apply only to those to whom they apply, and there are all sorts of pastoral exceptions even in the cases where normally they would apply, etc.

There are only six rules that apply to absolutely everyone, and even then, they only apply when they are physically possible, and the person is able to know them. (ie: they can never apply to children under the age of seven, or to the mentally incompetent.)

I think the practice of the Catholic religion is one of the few things one could do that that one could be completely incompetent at, and yet be doing it just fine - as long as your incompetence were outside of your personal control.

Also, it is a purely voluntary religion. We do what we do of our own free will. There are no Church officials going around on Sunday mornings dragging everyone out of bed and frog-marching them to Mass. (No one even phones, afterwards, to find out where you were instead.) Nobody comes along and hides all the meat from you on Fridays. And if you need to go to Confession, it’s up to you to know that, and to go.

 

[whatevergirl]

I don’t think I have ever heard the Catholic faith talked about like that, jmcrae…! I like that post.

 

[SSTeacher]

I think someone who is legalistic would become very frustrated with the Catholic Church, because although on the surface we do, in fact, have all these rules (YAY, rules!!), when it comes to actual practice, the rules apply only to those to whom they apply, and there are all sorts of pastoral exceptions even in the cases where normally they would apply, etc.

You make it sound like a setting a legalist would loathe.

There are only six rules that apply to absolutely everyone, and even then, they only apply when they are physically possible, and the person is able to know them. (ie: they can never apply to children under the age of seven, or to the mentally incompetent.)

Would you care to detail and enlarge upon what those six rules are?

I think the practice of the Catholic religion is one of the few things one could do that that one could be completely incompetent at, and yet be doing it just fine - as long as your incompetence were outside of your personal control.

That’s the sort of tolerant understanding approach that a legalist would want outlawed.

Also, it is a purely voluntary religion. We do what we do of our own free will. There are no Church officials going around on Sunday mornings dragging everyone out of bed and frog-marching them to Mass. (No one even phones, afterwards, to find out where you were instead.) Nobody comes along and hides all the meat from you on Fridays.

But isn’t it considered a mortal sin for a Catholic to miss Sunday Mass of his or her own free will?

And if you need to go to Confession, it’s up to you to know that, and to go.

But isn’t it considered a mortal sin for a Catholic not to go to Confession and Holy Communion at Easter time?

Inquiringly,
Mick

 

[whatevergirl]

The Catholic Church isn’t acting independent of God, though, Mick. That is the thing some get caught up in…that we are following statutes that are somehow not of God. Jesus is at the Head of the Church, we believe. That being said, no, it wouldn’t be mortally sinful to not go to confession once per year, if you did not have mortal sin on your soul. The sin is when we go up for Communion, without a good confession, if we have mortal sin on our soul. I didn’t always go to confession with great zeal until about 7 years ago, I’d say? Since then, I cannot imagine expecting to partake of the Eucharist, if I wasn’t as pure of heart, as I could be. It is not in anything we do, but in the graces given to us through the Sacraments given to us by Christ.

THAT being said, lol…our faith is voluntary, meaning that God has given us ALL free will. If we do commit mortal sins whatever they may be…(three things need to be present to be morally sinful) it is a sin in God’s eyes, which would be sinful according to Church teaching. Church teaching follows God, She doesn’t operate independent of Him. I think that is a popular fallacy many non Catholics believe about the Church…not saying you do, I’m just saying, in general.

Hope I’m making sense, I tend to ramble.

 

[jmcrae]

You make it sound like a setting a legalist would loathe.

We exist to make them crazy.

Would you care to detail and enlarge upon what those six rules are?

Gladly.

The Six Precepts of the Church

1. To hear Mass on all Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation.​

2. To confess our sins as needed, usually at least once a year.​

3. To receive Holy Communion at least once a year, during the Easter Season.​

4. To observe the laws of marriage and not to marry within certain degrees of kinship.​

5. To observe the prescribed days of fasting and abstinence from meat.​

6. To provide for the material needs of the Church, each according to his or her abilities.​

These precepts are binding upon all Catholics who are capable of observing them.

But isn’t it considered a mortal sin for a Catholic to miss Sunday Mass of his or her own free will? But isn’t it considered a mortal sin for a Catholic not to go to Confession and Holy Communion at Easter time?

Yes, yes, and yes - presuming competence, full knowledge, full consent of the will, and no mitigating circumstances such as a sick child at home, a mental lapse, an unforeseen deadline at work, or whatever the case may be.

But “mortal sin” is between ourselves and God. The Church tells us which sins are grave, and that if we do them on purpose and with free will that they are mortal, but that’s it.

The most that any official of the Church would do is post a reminder in tiny print after the birthday announcements in the Bulletin. Nobody, and I mean nobody is going around making sure you actually do it, or giving you a hard time if you don’t, unless you happen to bring up the subject on your own, or unless you appear to be seeking out advice on the matter.

 

[SSTeacher]

The Six Precepts of the Church

1. To hear Mass on all Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation.​

2. To confess our sins as needed, usually at least once a year.​

3. To receive Holy Communion at least once a year, during the Easter Season.​

4. To observe the laws of marriage and not to marry within certain degrees of kinship.​

5. To observe the prescribed days of fasting and abstinence from meat.​

6. To provide for the material needs of the Church, each according to his or her abilities.​

These precepts are binding upon all Catholics who are capable of observing them.

But “mortal sin” is between ourselves and God. The Church tells us which sins are grave, and that if we do them on purpose and with free will that they are mortal, but that’s it.

The most that any official of the Church would do is post a reminder in tiny print after the birthday announcements in the Bulletin. Nobody, and I mean nobody is going around making sure you actually do it, or giving you a hard time if you don’t, unless you happen to bring up the subject on your own, or unless you appear to be seeking out advice on the matter.

Fair enough. You’ve given me the details I asked for and I’m grateful. I’m studying the Catechism of the Catholic Church as I ask questions and I think I’ll mull over this answer for a while.

Appreciatively,
Mick

 

[4Squarebaby]

The most that any official of the Church would do is post a reminder in tiny print after the birthday announcements in the Bulletin. Nobody, and I mean nobody is going around making sure you actually do it, or giving you a hard time if you don’t, unless you happen to bring up the subject on your own, or unless you appear to be seeking out advice on the matter.

It is not the innerchurch discipline or a nice version of the Saudi Arabian religious police we are thinking about when we say “legalistic”. It is the Seventh Day Adentist insistance on the sabbath for an example of a legalism.

 

[SSTeacher]

jmcrae;4912141:

The most that any official of the Church would do is post a reminder in tiny print after the birthday announcements in the Bulletin. Nobody, and I mean nobody

is going around making sure you actually do it, or giving you a hard time if you don’t, unless you happen to bring up the subject on your own, or unless you appear to be seeking out advice on the matter.It is not the innerchurch discipline or a nice version of the Saudi Arabian religious police we are thinking about when we say “legalistic”. It is the Seventh Day Adentist insistance on the sabbath for an example of a legalism.

The Seventh–day Adventist insistence upon a Saturday Sabbath is a distinguishing belief of the Seventh–day Adventists, as their nomenclature suggests. Evangelicals with whom I’ve spoken on this matter do not necessarily agree with the Seventh–day Adventist interpretation of Scripture on this issue but they allow it as acceptable because the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, proclaimed at the Reformation, is that each person should be able to read and interpret the Bible for himself or herself. What separates the Seventh–day Adventists from mainstream Bible–believing Christians on this issue is that the Seventh–day Adventists insist that their interpretation of the Bible on this issue is the only one that is valid.

So there’s a difference of opinion about what the Bible says (no huge surprise in this, right?).

What biblical disagreements boil down to, in my opinion, is the way people understand different verses together with their understanding of the context and how well each person involved in the disagreement can rearrange his (or her) prejudices in order to give the impression that he (or she) is completely objective and has no agenda (perish the thought).

So within biblical parameters in order to substantiate the claim that the Seventh–day Adventists are legalistic one would have to show that there’s absolutely no biblical endorsement for a Saturday Sabbath. And as that’s not possible I submit that the Seventh–day Adventist position on this issue is by no means legalistic but is as biblical as any Reform or Arminian doctrine.

If a Seventh–day Adventist challenged you to prove a biblical case for Sunday worship as opposed to a Saturday Sabbath, what verses would you cite?

Respectfully,
Mick

 

[whatevergirl]

Don’t mean to intrude…lol
But this passage comes to mind for why we worship and consider Sunday our Sabbath:
From Genesis:

*2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. *

It was also to not ‘clash’ for a better word with the Jewish sabbath, which is saturday.

 

[SSTeacher]

Don’t mean to intrude…lol
But this passage comes to mind for why we worship and consider Sunday our Sabbath:
From Genesis:

*2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. *

It was also to not ‘clash’ for a better word with the Jewish sabbath, which is saturday.

No intrusion whatever, whatevergirl.

The verses you’ve cited actually endorse the Seventh–day Adventist stance. The Seventh–day Adventist challenge to “Bible only” Christians is to search the Scriptures for a verse which shows that the seventh–day Sabbath was abrogated. I’ve taken it up and I can’t find one.

I don’t think the Seventh–day Adventists issue the same challenge to Catholics, though, since Catholics do not rely on the Bible alone for their doctrines and practices.

Circumspectly,
Mick

 

[4Squarebaby]

The Seventh

 

[whatevergirl]

No intrusion whatever, whatevergirl.

The verses you’ve cited actually endorse the Seventh–day Adventist stance. The Seventh–day Adventist challenge to “Bible only” Christians is to search the Scriptures for a verse which shows that the seventh–day Sabbath was abrogated. I’ve taken it up and I can’t find one.

I don’t think the Seventh–day Adventists issue the same challenge to Catholics, though, since Catholics do not rely on the Bible alone for their doctrines and practices.

Circumspectly,
Mick

I don’t think there is a real known basis that Sunday marked the 7th day, but seeing that Jews worship on Saturdays, I believe that one of the main reasons Catholics worship on Sunday can be two fold…our Lord rose from the dead (most likely on what we call a Sunday) and so we wouldn’t clash with the Jewish worship day. Sabbath was always a day of rest, not necessarily a day to worship. I think it evolved into taking on a dual meaning, this is my understanding, anyways.

 

[SSTeacher]

I don’t think there is a real known basis that Sunday marked the 7th day, but seeing that Jews worship on Saturdays, I believe that one of the main reasons Catholics worship on Sunday can be two fold…our Lord rose from the dead (most likely on what we call a Sunday) and so we wouldn’t clash with the Jewish worship day. Sabbath was always a day of rest, not necessarily a day to worship. I think it evolved into taking on a dual meaning, this is my understanding, anyways.

Possibly germane to this issue is Canon 29 of the Synod of Laodicea (Check it out) which states:

Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.

Helpfully,
Mick

 

[whatevergirl]

Possibly germane to this issue is Canon 29 of the Synod of Laodicea (Check it out) which states:

Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.

Helpfully,
Mick

That’s interesting. Just fyi, that link doesn’t lead anywhere…not sure why.

 

[SSTeacher]

That’s interesting. Just fyi, that link doesn’t lead anywhere…not sure why.

You’re right, it doesn’t lead anywhere. Like talking to a teenager, huh? It’s supposed to take you to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Sorry, I’ve messed something up. One of these ought to work:

Try it again

newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm

Clumsily,
Mick

 

[whatevergirl]

You’re right, it doesn’t lead anywhere. Like talking to a teenager, huh? It’s supposed to take you to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Sorry, I’ve messed something up. One of these ought to work:

Try it again

newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm

Clumsily,
Mick

lol, I’ll check it out later.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t think there is a real known basis that Sunday marked the 7th day, but seeing that Jews worship on Saturdays, I believe that one of the main reasons Catholics worship on Sunday can be two fold…our Lord rose from the dead (most likely on what we call a Sunday) and so we wouldn’t clash with the Jewish worship day. Sabbath was always a day of rest, not necessarily a day to worship. I think it evolved into taking on a dual meaning, this is my understanding, anyways.

This is a new take on it that I had not encountered before. It definitely puts it into an interesting perspective.

My own understanding is that, in the Early Church, the Liturgy of the Word (which was Old Testament only, obviously) took place on Saturdays at the Synagogue (and in fact, it wasn’t called the Liturgy of the Word, yet - it was just the ordinary Synagogue service), and then the Liturgy of the Eucharist took place on Sundays, in honour of the Resurrection of Christ.

Over time, and especially after the destruction of the Temple, when Christians were no longer permitted to go to Synagogue, the Liturgy of the Word was moved to the regular Sunday gathering, and began to take place right before the Liturgy of the Eucharist, just as it does today.

By the time of Justin, in 150 AD, New Testament readings, or what Justin calls “the memoirs and letters of the Apostles,” since he had no concept of a “New Testament” yet, had also been added to the Liturgy of the Word, as had the Profession of Faith, which in Justin’s time, was pretty much the Apostles’ Creed. There were also many other features of Justin’s Mass that we would recognize today, as well.

 

[Contarini]

I ask, because from time to time, I listen to a few Protestant radio programs on my way home from work, and often, the hosts will refer to Catholics as legalistic, or they will be speaking about legalism, and I get the strong sense that they are referring to Catholics.
What exactly does this mean? When I think of the word legalism, I think of the Pharisees, who were hypocrits, and believed in following certain laws over being kind and loving to one’s neighbor.

I was hopeful we could start a dialogue on this, that stays friendly of course. Look forward to your replies.

Different Protestants will have different views on this, and some Protestants are way more legalistic than Catholics. But I would say that on the whole I and many non-Catholics (including Orthodox) see the Roman Communion as characterized by a “legalistic” approach, and this is one of my biggest problems with your Communion. You approach things in generally legal terms and this leads to a lot of concern with what the rules say and just what kind of behavior is allowed or forbidden–this covers matters from doctrine to worship to ethics. This attitude has its advantages–one knows what your Communion teaches and you can take strong stands on complex issues. But it has its drawbacks as well.

A more precise question for Protestants is the role of ecclesiastical law. Protestants are disturbed by the idea that ecclesiastical ordinances (i.e., matters of discipline which the Church can change) are binding on the conscience. Mass attendance on holy days and fasting on Fridays in Lent would be the two most obvious contemporary examples. Protestants would generally argue that ecclesiastical rules of this nature may be good guidelines for the community to follow but cannot bind the conscience. We can argue about this, but one obvious problem with the Catholic position here is that the generally “legal” approach taken by your Communion creates great confusion as to what is a matter of doctrine and morals and what is a matter of discipline. Over and over I have heard ex-Catholics say that they left because the Catholic Church had “too many rules.” I used to assume that they were talking about disciplinary matters, but often it turns out that they are talking about fairly basic moral teachings such as the Church’s position on divorce. Because the Catholic Church takes such a complex, legally oriented stance on divorce (many priests seem confused as to whether a divorced person who has not remarried but has not had their first marriage annulled can receive communion, for instance), it is easy for people to write off the Church’s basic teaching on the indissolubility of marriage as just another “rule.” Thus, the very precision and firmness which ought to make the Catholic Church an excellent defender of basic Christian moral teaching winds up undercutting that teaching, because it gets lumped together with the general insistence on ecclesiastical regulation found in your Communion.

Edwin

 

[distracted]

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.

.

well, if you explain it that way, it sounds better… All i know is that the Church is not against ectopic pregnancy removals… I am not a doctor or nurse & do not know HOW the child is removed or whatever… All i do know is that if soemthing is not done both will die…