Is Catholicism legalistic?

[goodcatholic]

Every time I begin to draw close to embracing Catholicism, I get caught up in all of the rules and regulations

Not all of us are legalists. My advice would be, keep it simple, don’t fret if you don’t become Catholic. There is no perfect denom. though some Catholics will assert theirs IS the one and only. Go where you feel comfortable. Don’t rely solely on intellect. I mean you could argue for the rest of your life over the differences between Catholic and Protestant. Advantages and disadvantages. My brother is Pentecostal. Now he can be quite dogmatic and dismissive but I really respect him for his zeal and authenticity. He’s no hypocrite.He’s a better Christian than me by virtue of how loving he is towards his neighbour. I tend to think this is the most important thing in the end.

 

[goodcatholic]

I think you have a better grasp of all this than most Catholics on this forum

I thought that too but there are some quite knowledgeable people here too. Cradle Catholics like myself tend to be the least educated.

 

[fhansen]

"The only thing that counts is faith working through love." Gal 5:6 “For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” Eph 2:10 As the Church teaches, everything we do, whether faith or works, as a result of becoming bound to God via the New Covenant, is a matter of grace.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Catholics use different words …

for example … “justification” is not part of Catholic lexicon.

We receive Holy Communion … we do not “take” communion.

These are things we absorb.

The “problem” is that words have meaning.

 

[Vico]

…

A person is saved certainly at the moment of their death if in the state of grace. Before that time the state of grace, which is the habitual indwelling of the Holy Spirit, may occur continuously from the moment of baptism, or there may be breaks in that indwelling due to mortal sin, restored through the sacrament of penance. We do not know certainly, from the moment of our baptism, without special revelation, what will be our final state.

Council of Trent, Sixth Session

CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that, since Adam’s sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema.

CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end, – unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.

 

[Vico]

…
What is wrong with my understanding of works as necessary, but only as the fruit and proof of what Christ has already accomplished for me personally through his life, death, and resurrection?

Council of Trent, Sixth Session

CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.

CANON XIX.-If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

CANON XXV.-If any one saith, that, in every good work, the just sins venially at least, or - which is more intolerable still - mortally, and consequently deserves eternal punishments; and that for this cause only he is not damned, that God does not impute those works unto damnation; let him be anathema.

CANON XXVI.-If any one saith, that the just ought not, for their good works done in God, to expect and hope for an eternal recompense from God, through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if so be that they persevere to the end in well doing and in keeping the divine commandments; let him be anathema.

http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm

 

[Gorgias]

Catholics use different words …

for example … “justification” is not part of Catholic lexicon.

Umm… yes, it is part of the Catholic lexicon!

See the Catechism beginning at #1987!

Now, I’ll grant you that the way Catholics use the term ‘justification’ differs from the way Protestants use it. (To my experience, what Protestants call ‘justification’, Catholics call the process of ‘justification, sanctification, and salvation’.) But, we all talk about justification – after all, so does Paul in his epistles!

 

[Tis_Bearself]

for example … “justification” is not part of Catholic lexicon.

The word is apparently in the Catechism, defined as “to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us ‘the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ’ and through Baptism.”
But you are right, it is almost never used outside of a theology class.
I have heard the words “to cleanse us from our sins” about 1,000,000 times. I never heard the term “justification” until about 2 years ago.
Protestants use it constantly and think about it constantly too. For most Catholics who are not involved in apologetics, we don’t use the word, and the concept is rather simple.

 

[MonteRCMS]

he word is apparently in the Catechism, defined as “to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us ‘the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ’ and through Baptism.”
But you are right, it is almost never used outside of a theology class.
I have heard the words “to cleanse us from our sins” about 1,000,000 times. I never heard the term “justification” until about 2 years ago.
Protestants use it constantly and think about it constantly too. For most Catholics who are not involved in apologetics, we don’t use the word, and the concept is rather simple.

This is closer to my experience.

It was not until I began hanging around with Protestant “theologians” that I encountered the word “justification”.

 

[o_mlly]

What is wrong with my understanding of works as necessary, but only as the fruit and proof of what Christ has already accomplished for me personally through his life, death, and resurrection?

In Catholic thinking, all goodness comes from God. The impulse to do good works first comes from God. When presented with a moral choice, that is a choice in which one may do evil or do good, God is present to us. He is the Grace within us prompting us to do His will.

In the moment preceding a decision involving a moral act, actual or prevenient grace proposes to us to choose the good, “All good giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father” (James 1:17). Man chooses to do the good thereby perfecting the actual grace or to do the evil nihilating the actual grace, that is to “do nothing.” “Without me, you can do nothing” (John 15:5).

 

[po18guy]

Classic. Beautifully stated.

 

[CelticWarlord]

you know NOTHING about the Catholic Church

This was the case I found myself in about ten years ago. It wasn’t until I decided to see what the church itself taught, instead of reading derisive stuff from non-Catholics, that I discovered everything I had been told about Catholicism, everything, was wrong. The gentleman who posted those remarks reminds me of the me of twenty years ago. He just needs a bit of mild enlightenment.

 

[po18guy]

“Unlearning” can be a difficult process. As apologists say, one must take their Protestant glasses off to see the Church clearly.

Others simply love to argue and dispute. They could and should have a listen to a few conversion stories at the Coming Home Newtork.

Not as satisfying as arguing, but much more enlightening.

 

[fhansen]

TY + more characters

 

[Glenn]

There may come a time when I am angry at a brother or sister, and that flows over into anger against God. So I decide not to attend Mass.

Yes, it is unscriptural. That was actually my point. We are all subject to moral lapses. King David, one of God’s choicest servants in the Old Testament, “a man after God’s own heart,” committed adultery with Bathsheba, then sanctioned the murder of Uriah, her husband. And he hid those mortal sins before he was confronted by the prophet Nathan. So if David had died prior to his confession, would he have been condemned to Hell. I tend to think not.

I believe God is concerned not just about our track record, but the overall disposition of our character. David loved God, but his love, like our love, was not yet perfected. God understands our weaknesses and our vulnerabilities. The fact that David was confronted by Nathan, and the fact that he did repent, is owed, I believe to God’s providence.

While we all commit sins of commission and omission, it is not so much our individual acts that make us sinners; it is the fact that we are still sinners, that we still have an old nature at war against our new nature, that makes us sin. So God’s forgiveness must extend beyond our individual acts to the whole person who has committed his life to the Savior, to the one who has become his adopted child.

 

[tafan2]

Glenn, I am jumping in late to this discussion, but you ask about the sabbath and attending mass, and that is part of what was on my mind for an example. So I jump in late without reviewing the whole thread, but perhaps this will help.

When I read you OP, the first thing that came to mind was the precepts of the church and what the Catechism says about them. They are listed in the catechism in paragraphs 2042 and 2043. These are the “basic” laws of the church that apply to all Catholics ( One of them is attending mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation.)
They are very important, it is a mortal sin for a Catholic to violate one of them knowingly and freely (as you seem to know about attending mass. What is interesting is paragraph 2041 (boldness added by myself:

2041 The precepts of the Church are set in the context of a moral life bound to and nourished by liturgical life. The obligatory character of these positive laws decreed by the pastoral authorities is meant to guarantee to the faithful the very necessary minimum in the spirit of prayer and moral effort, in the growth in love of God and neighbor:

The Church is not making up random laws and just saying: if you don’t do this you go to hell. The Church is stating, under her teaching, authority, the bare minimum we must do to grow in our faith and in love of God and neighbor. Now, imagine your marriage (assuming you are married), what is the bare minimum you must do to keep your marriage healthy? The obvious answer is that you need to be faithful. If you commit adultery, you are completely turning away from your wife, you are killing your marriage. In the same fashion, if you are not willing to do the minimum to grow in love of God and neighbor, you are turning away from Christ. You are killing your relationship with Christ. And that is what mortal sin is all about: choosing to kill you relationship with God.

Maybe that helps.

 

[margaret42]

Jesus came to end “legalism”, and teach the “spirit” of the law. Unless really we know what Jesus meant, the church could be seen as “legalistic”, when it really isn’t. Every rule has a reason; and so do the teachings of the Church.

 

[margaret42]

I guess so, since the rules of the church are so “ingrained”. Take for example the rules about Lent and fasting. I used to lose my mind trying to fast. But Jesus never meant for us to “go off the deep end” about it.
I’m past the age of fasting, but never new how to, and still don’t. a good explanation of what a “full meal” is according to the Church, would help with basic common sense.

 

[Mtatum1958]

I’m past the age of fasting, but never new how to, and still don’t. a good explanation of what a “full meal” is according to the Church, would help with basic common sense.

I know I can be off the mark as much as anyone here, but doesn’t this (lack of exacting guidelines) point to a less legalistic stance?

 

[margaret42]

If there were no rules, we would have no understanding at all about how to live as a Catholic. But they guide us, and without a priest or spiritual director explaining the commandments say, we’d all be following the “letter of the law”, which implies we can do this perfectly. and we can’t, as we all know