Is Catholicism too Legalistic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WhiteDove
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WhiteDove

Guest
This is the accusation from Protestants, who like to simplify everything down to the basics. Hearing the endless arguments here over the intracisies and complexities of Catholic law really has me scratching my head. Frankly, I’m amazed at all the details, from liturgy to musical instruments. My head is spinning! I didn’t know about half these controversies!

On the other hand, I’m thankful for the Magesterium spelling things out. It seems as if the Protestants are missing out on so much and are subject to every which way the wind blows, with no oversight at all!

I suppose I’ll just continue on my way, trying to lead a life of prayer, and getting as much out of what is offered by the Sacraments. Maybe I ought to stop reading this forum, though?
 
They’re not simplifying White Dove, they’re defining and redefining as conditions require because there is no central authority or universal recognition of the truth.

Holy cow, the Church is 2000 years old, encompasses more people than any other religion/sect, and spans more nations and cultures. Even the Vatican divides up responsibilities.

The thing about this forum for me is I learn lots. I’ve gone out researching stuff brought up here. And I have to admit not everything we all put out as so is so.
 
NO, Catholicism is not too legalistic. However, some Catholics are too legalistic!

I would encourage a Protestant to read the CCC. It’s hard to get offended by the well-reasoned precepts defined in this wonderful book.
 
Do you think this forum might be damaging to your faith?

I have been wondering if we aren’t somehow past the point where words can make any difference. I wonder if we live in a time of ‘seeing’. I think that this would be mostly due to movies and their effect on us, and I am not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps it’s even a good thing?
 
Great Issue; I was thinking about it myself.

No, Catholicism isn’t too legalistic, but some Catholics are, and many posters on these forums are.

One thread sticks in my mind. A priest was making his own altar breads and used a little milk. Now the regulations are silent on the subject of what wet ingredient to use in making altar bread. To be super squeaky, the guy could have used water. But for practical reasons ( i.e., he doesn’t know much about how to bake with flour) he used a little milk. There is no question that the altar breads were valid matter, and moreover, met the requirement of “must appear like wheat bread” a whole lot better than most hosts. But this lady got her shorts in knots about it. At most, the priest was doing something trivially illicit but in good faith. No harm, no fault. Anyone knows that the grace of a Mass makes up for our trivial mistakes in saying it or hearing it.
But that great fact is ignored and some folks are all upset about it.

I’m inclined to agree with you about reading them is a waste of time. But better than watching TV.
 
I don’t believe that the Catholic Church is any more legalistic than most Protestant denominations. Having more doctrine doesn’t mean more legalism. Consider the first Marriam-Webster definition “1 : strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code.” It says nothing about having more or less law, but excessive conformity to what laws you have (excessive meaning to the point of doing more harm than the law is supposed to protect you from). Consider that the Church has a directorate against the use of the birth control pill. But, if it will be used as a medical treatment, then the rule doesn’t apply. This is a perfect example of what legalism isn’t. On the other hand, a loyal Jehovah’s Witness would rather watch his wife and children die than to allow them to receive blood transfusions. That is legalism.
 
Dear Pace,
Yes, I think maybe reading all these opinions might be a distraction from God.

What do you mean that we are in a time of ‘seeing’? As far as movies, I never watch them. I’ve only seen one or two movies in the last two years. I don’t like watching movies. I do like this forum. I like the written word.

Sincerely, WhiteDove
 
I think that one of the reasons some think the Church too legalistic is that she has been defending against heresy and dissent for 2000 years. What some see as a wealth of teaching others see as overly extensive legalism. Frankly I see it as another sign that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. 👍
 
Dear Slim,
One thought I have is that Judaism had become incredibly entangled in the Law by the time of Christ. It’s mentioned a lot in the NT, this Jewish Law. It was and is extremely intricate, governing minutae details of life. The Rabbis spent much of their time arguing about it.

Then Christ came with the New Covenent, revealing God’s ultimate truth. We were supposed to be liberated from meaningless Law. Orthodox Judaism today is full of it. They agonize over crumbs of bread in the cupboards at Passover, they have two sets of dishes for milk and meat, they leave a burner on all of the Sabbath to cook, because turning one on and off is considered ‘work’.

Then, as roemer says, you have Catholics arguing over milk in the Host! To me, that’s hairsplitting. You also have folks arguing over a lot of other things here.

Anyways, those are some of my thoughts.

Sincerely, WhiteDove
 
WhiteDove,

Yes, one that really angered Jesus was the prohibition of healing on the Sabbath. This is similar to my JW example. Resting on the Sabbath was given as a gift, but the legalists took it to the point of believing that it is better to let someone die then to do any work on the Sabbath. I really can’t think of anything the Catholic Church has taught which really applies this way. I think the Church tries to keep a hierarchy of principles with which I believe it is very consistent.
 
My response to someone who thinks Catholicism is too legalistic: Ask them to study the Old Testament.

Wasn’t it the Pharisees that were ultra-legalistic? They had the Law down to an absolute speck, decimals…speaking of details!

Jesus actually did away with LOTS of that…he did away with the dietary laws, simplified purfication…the Jews have ritual and actual purification ceremonies…etc. They coudn’t eat certain foods…but Jesus stated that the food that God provides cannot by definition be unclean.

Catholicism follows Natural Law, which is extremely logical. By contrast, I’ve found Protestant religions to be very subjective, without definition or organization. Protestants seem to jump from church to church, find the teachings they like, and change when they decide to do so. Their ministers come by votes of popularity in the church, and if a particular parish happens to be not very devout…well, there go the devout, shopping again…or vice versa.

One can attend one Southern Baptist church and get one sermon…then go to another and hear a different one, maybe about the same verses but a completely different interpretation.

I have heard these complaints from Protestants themselves.

I’m not saying that Protestants aren’t Godly, devout, and wonderful people…I’m saying that they have complaints about Catholicism that either reflect their own churches or their inability to see through the glass clearly.

People love to spout off about things they dont’ understand, and when you get them alone you learn that their source was some distant friend several years ago who heard something about Catholicism from someone else’s rendition of an observation incorrectly made 10 years ago in Podunk outside of a wedding for an acquaintance, one of whom might have been Catholic…or maybe Anglican or Evangelical. Either way, the idea was that Catholics are bad!

But I digress…and we are as legalistic as we have to be. When one sees all the schism and liberalism in the church, when all we want is stability, we realize that stability comes from discipline…and we look to the Holy See for direction.
 
I’m going to make a simplistic statement I believe is true; Catholicism is not legalistic if it is practiced with love (cf. Matt. 22:34-40). Is that the heart of the matter?
 
Matthew 22:34-40

34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sad’ducees, they came together.
35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, to test him.
36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
38 This is the great and first commandment.
39 And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
40 On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”
 
I’m going to have to side with WhiteDove on this thread…

To me it seems that history is about to repeat itself. When Jesus came the first time, he corrected the main interpreters of the law (the Pharisees).

And it’s almost time for Jesus to come again. And I believe he will set a few things straight…again…

Keep going WhiteDove… I have to go to bed now…

God bless!!!😃
 
in Matt.23:1-4 we read
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.”
Click to expand...
At the same time that Jesus reprimanded the pharisees for their hypocrisy he also tells the people to follow their teaching. Keeping this in mind I have to say that I might agree with the tone of some posts here that the laws of the Catholic Church may sometimes feel too strict or too particular. But at the same time we know that Christ exhorts us to submit ourselves in all humility to those laws; for whatever the Church binds on earth will have been bound in heaven.
 
The legalism that is condemned in the NT isn’t about following rules. It is about thinking that just because I follow some religious rules about external form, such as being circumcised, that I have a guaranteed place in the Kingdom of God. There were Jews in Jesus’ time who thought that just because they were Jews, that God was going to cut them slack if they lived sinful lives. Keeping Kosher meant a place in Heaven – and it didn’t matter if you robbed orphans and widows as long as the external disciplinary laws of Judaism were kept.

The Protestants that have swallowed the lie of “Once Saved, Always Saved” have fallen into the legalism trap condemned in the scriptures. Do a work such as saying the “sinners prayer” at an altar call, and then, slam-bam, instant possession of an ironclad contract with God that guarantees a place in heaven. According to the doctrine of OSAS, there is NO sin imaginable that a “saved” man could commit that would cause him to lose his eternal security. Yep, no sin at all, not even unrepentant Satan worshipping – God will take the “saved” man into heaven even if he died in complete hatred of God while screaming blasphemies against the Holy Spirit.

Christians have rules that they have to obey - the Ten Commandments for instance. That is not legalism.
 
No we are not too legalistic as a faith. As it as been posted on this thread, we have 2000 years and 1 billion people to call upon and care for. The Church must try to keep an answer for everything.

I humbly disagree with JesusistheWay. The legalismof the Jewish authorities was a self-serving type. It was writen from the stand point of getting right with God by finding loopholes and ways to avoid sin, not serve Him. The rules set forth by the Church are here to help us aviod sin AND serve God the best way possible. Besides, when Jesus returns and looks to see who ate his body and drank his blood as he taught, what is the answer there? That was a legalistic rule and you did not mean it?
 
40.png
WhiteDove:
Dear Pace,
Yes, I think maybe reading all these opinions might be a distraction from God.

What do you mean that we are in a time of ‘seeing’? As far as movies, I never watch them. I’ve only seen one or two movies in the last two years. I don’t like watching movies. I do like this forum. I like the written word.

Sincerely, WhiteDove
Click to expand...
White Dove,

I will post an essay soon by Peter Kreeft that I think says it best about this ‘seeing’.

I have a question for you, though. Why do you never watch movies? And why don’t you like them? I think I know the answers that you would give. The reason is probably the same with all of us: we feel a vague sense of guilt. Watching movies has paralysed us. We have let so much pass into our eyes and memory. So now we can’t tell what is good for us and what is bad for us (in movies…and probably outside of them). So we feel vaguely guilty. We might even be forgiven for using words like ‘molested’ or ‘raped’ to describe what is happening. We even volunteer and pay good money for this to be done to us.

I don’t mean to be negative. The news that I want to bring is that I believe that God has made a movie (with only the slightest interference from the artist through whom he has accomplished this), and He has destroyed all that Hollywood has built up over all these years.
 
40.png
WhiteDove:
Dear Pace,
Yes, I think maybe reading all these opinions might be a distraction from God.

What do you mean that we are in a time of ‘seeing’? As far as movies, I never watch them. I’ve only seen one or two movies in the last two years. I don’t like watching movies. I do like this forum. I like the written word.

Sincerely, WhiteDove
Click to expand...
White Dove,

I love this forum, too. It’s like being in heaven, in a way, in the way everyone charitably corrects and perfects one another.

Peter Kreeft here explains about the ‘seeing’:

peterkreeft.com/topics/love-sees.htm

I believe that God, through film director David Lynch, has restored this sight to us.
 
One thread sticks in my mind. A priest was making his own altar breads and used a little milk. Now the regulations are silent on the subject of what wet ingredient to use in making altar bread. To be super squeaky, the guy could have used water. But for practical reasons ( i.e., he doesn’t know much about how to bake with flour) he used a little milk. There is no question that the altar breads were valid matter, and moreover, met the requirement of “must appear like wheat bread” a whole lot better than most hosts. But this lady got her shorts in knots about it. At most, the priest was doing something trivially illicit but in good faith.

So, the priest, who ought to know better, is judged by you as acting in good faith while the woman, who does know her Faith for the better of all concerned, is judged as having her shorts in a knot.

IMO, her shorts are apt.
***BTW, I think you have achieved a new standard of casualness with your “trivially illicit” in regards the Eucharist. ***
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top