Righteousness: Mosaic Law or The Catechism?

[PLeeD]

Seems as though the law of Moses is simply supplanted by the catechism - one form of legalism in place of other. If your conscience doesn’t conform to the catechism then your conscience is wrong.

What room is left for the Holy Spirit to do His work in our hearts?

 

[Cruxis117]

Seems as though the law of Moses is simply supplanted by the catechism - one form of legalism in place of other. If your conscience doesn’t conform to the catechism then your conscience is wrong.

What room is left for the Holy Spirit to do His work in our hearts?

There is a profound difference between the two. While the Catechism is not in itself a holy text, it contains the teachings of the Church. The Church, which “is the bulwark and pillar of truth”, which was founded upon the Rock (Matthew 16:18), and which would be lead by the Holy Spirit (the Advocate) into “all truth” (John 16:13). The Holy Spirit works in us all, as it has been made known in the Scriptures. The teachings of the Church are not meant to become “legalistic” in nature. It is not “do these laws, and you shall be saved”. The whole point of these teachings are to emphasize the neccessary relationship we need with Jesus and with God the Father.

 

[TimothyH]

The Holy Spirit works in our hearts but it also works in the visible institution of the Church.

**And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you. (John 14:16-17)**These words were spoken by Jesus as he was conversing alone with the twelve Apostles in the upper room during the Last Supper. In Chapter 14, Thomas, Philip, and Judas were asking Jesus questions directly. Jesus’ teaching to the Apostles continues through chapter 15 and into chapter 16 where Jesus says.

**But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. (John 16:13)**Yes, the Holy Spirit works in our own lives in powerful ways but Jesus promise of the Holy Spirit was more than just to individuals, and in the case of the passages cited above, it was specifically to the institution of the Church. The Holy Spirit rested upon individuals at Pentacost but it gave birth to a Church. God’s revelation to man comes from the Holy Spirit primarily through the Church. The Bible itself came from the Church.

In so far as the Holy Spirit has guided that same Church in its production of the Catechism, the Catechism is part of God’s truth revealed to man. Following the Catechism is a sure compass. Its a way to know that you are always following God’s will, that you will never be off course, that no matter how you feel or what other’s say or how difficult it may seem or how confusing it all becomes, you are always heading in the right direction - toward God and doing his will as revealed to us by the Holy Spirit through the Church.

It is very comforting to know that God left a gift of such a sure guide.

-Tim-

 

[Scoobyshme]

Seems as though the law of Moses is simply supplanted by the catechism - one form of legalism in place of other. If your conscience doesn’t conform to the catechism then your conscience is wrong.

What room is left for the Holy Spirit to do His work in our hearts?

But the Holy Spirit is not the Spirit of Confusion. It is the Spirit of Truth. And the Truth cannot contradict itself. Protestant Christianity is nothing but contradictions. Take, for example, Baptists, who believe that infant baptism is wrong. Lutherans, on the other hand, believe it is acceptable and, therefore, practice it. Both read the same Bible and both claim to be lead in their interpretation of the Bible by the same Holy Spirit. Both cannot be correct. And we could go on and on with other similar examples.

When Jesus walked the earth, He taught orally. He trained the Apostles over three years with the fullness of His Truth and commanded them to do likewise to others. SOME of what the Apostles taught orally was written down. In the fourth century, the Catholic Church collected some of these writings and combined them into what we now call the New Testament. Not all that Jesus did or taught was written down (see John 21:25).

Jesus established a (one) Church to spread His truths. This Church, the Catholic Church, was the ONLY Christian Church for the first 1000 years of Christianity. Then, in 1054 A.D., the Orthodox split off. But, they retained Apostolic Succession, and therefore, all seven Sacraments. Only in 1517 A.D. did Protestantism get its start, by an ex-Catholic priest, Martin Luther. Since that time, it has splintered into literally thousands of man-made, doctrinally disunified, confused, disagreeing denominations, all based on someone’s personal interpretation of Scripture, which St. Peter talks against in 2 Peter 1:20.

 

[TMC]

Seems as though the law of Moses is simply supplanted by the catechism - one form of legalism in place of other. If your conscience doesn’t conform to the catechism then your conscience is wrong.

What room is left for the Holy Spirit to do His work in our hearts?

This is an excellent question and the answer (as you suggest) is that no form of legalism alone can lead one to salvation. Both the law of Moses and the catechism are merely guides that seek to assist those that follow them to allow Christ and His Grace into their hearts and lives. As a Catholic, I believe the catechism is far superior to the law of Moses in this regard. I think that if one truly follows the Catechism, and does not merely try to meet the “legalistic” requirements of it, then one will necessarily open oneself to God. But no set of rules can alone lead to salvation because salvation is not a reward for following the correct rule set, it is a gift freely given that must be as freely accepted.

 

[Corki]

Seems as though the law of Moses is simply supplanted by the catechism - one form of legalism in place of other.

What room is left for the Holy Spirit to do His work in our hearts?

The Catechism isn’t a legal text. The Catechism, in fact, contains relatively little of the “rules” of Catholicism. The Catechism is a summary of the faith and is a cross reference to Scripture.

If your conscience doesn’t conform to the catechism then your conscience is wrong.

Is this your opinion? It isn’t the teaching of the Church. The Church requires that Catholics engage in a life-long process of conscience formation. The Catechism can be a starting point for that but it isn’t the final word. And believe me, the Holy Spirit is very much at work in our hearts as we go through the process.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Seems as though the law of Moses is simply supplanted by the catechism - one form of legalism in place of other. If your conscience doesn’t conform to the catechism then your conscience is wrong.

What room is left for the Holy Spirit to do His work in our hearts?

There is only One Holy Spirit and He does not contradict Himself.

Your church says that divorce is not sinful.

The Catholic Church says that it is. So does the Bible. This is what you call “legalism”?

 

[Barbkw]

Seems as though the law of Moses is simply supplanted by the catechism - one form of legalism in place of other. If your conscience doesn’t conform to the catechism then your conscience is wrong.

What room is left for the Holy Spirit to do His work in our hearts?

Our “hearts” can be and are influenced by evil.

Sacred Scripture, Sacred Apostolic Tradition and The Church and her Catechism provides the 3,000 plus year-old guide for our heart, mind and soul:

catholicparents.org/oxcart/Examination%20of%20Conscience.pdf

Without Shepards, sheep will aimlessly wander off.

 

[EnglishTeacher]

The Catechism isn’t a legal text. The Catechism, in fact, contains relatively little of the “rules” of Catholicism. The Catechism is a summary of the faith and is a cross reference to Scripture.

Exactly. With all due respect, I think the OP misunderstands the purpose of a catechism.

 

[beafedor]

Jesus didn’t come to abolish but to fulfill the law of Moses (Matthew chapter 5). This he did by dying for our sins in the perfect and ultimate sacrifice, giving us the Sacraments and establishing His Church on earth. The Holy Spirit is at work in our hearts through the Sacraments and enables us to be open to Scripture and the Catechism that gives us a summary of the doctrine of the faith based on Sacred Scripture (containing the Law which has not been abolished) and Sacred Tradition (which Jesus, the Apostles and their successors taught orally). This question that you are asking needs a more profound answer which I cannot provide but I pray that you find more answers on the Forum. Also Dr Scott Hahn has excellent materials about the old and new covenants and their fulfillment. Look him up on his website. archive.salvationhistory.com/library/scripture/wordofgod/covtbrins2.cfm4.htm Peace be with you.

 

[TimothyH]

Both the law of Moses and the catechism are merely guides that seek to assist those that follow them to allow Christ and His Grace into their hearts and lives.

I’m sure I’m not too comfortable with the statement that the Catechism is “Merely a guide.” The implication of that statement is that you can choose to believe something different if you think that your belief is a better guide. It is infallible teaching, a magesterial document of the Church, no?

Not trying to challenge. I’m sincerly asking a question.

-Tim-

 

[TMC]

I’m sure I’m not too comfortable with the statement that the Catechism is “Merely a guide.” The implication of that statement is that you can choose to believe something different if you think that your belief is a better guide. It is infallible teaching, a magesterial document of the Church, no?

Not trying to challenge. I’m sincerly asking a question.

-Tim-

Catholics believe that the Catechism is mandatory, but we also do not believe it is all infallible. That said, to me the word “guide” does not suggest fallible or infallible, optional or mandatory. It simply describes that the Catechism is not an end to itself and that following the Catechism is not the ultimate goal - the Catechism is a guide to accomplishing a much large and more important goal - living a Grace-filled life. That goal is different (and larger and much more important) than merely checking off a list of legalistic requirements. That is what I mean by guide - it is an important and useful tool, but it is not the objective.

 

[PLeeD]

Quote:
If your conscience doesn’t conform to the catechism then your conscience is wrong.

Is this your opinion? It isn’t the teaching of the Church.

It’s not my opinion as much as it seems to be the opinion of other Catholics on this forum.

There is a thread on the moral theology forum where a Catholic woman is being clobbered by other Catholics over her questions about birth control. Post after post has told her that if her conscience doesn’t conform the what the church teaches then her conscience is wrong.

My understanding is that if the Catholic believer really cannot find agreement between their conscience and church teaching, then they are expected to do what the church says regardless. Any Catholic who would follow their conscience in contradiction to church teaching is engaged in mortal sin.

IMO, that contradicts many verses in the bible that promise an indwelling of the Holy Spirit that will work to conform our lives to God’s will. I don’t see how it differs from Mosaic legalism to be told you have to follow words written by human hands regardless of the individual’s conscience.

I don’t believe she is sinning if her conscience is truly leading her. That is between her and God, not between her and the Catholic in the pew next to her. Otherwise what use is it to be sealed with the Holy Spirit? Use of birth control might not be God’s will for her, but that’s not for other Catholics to judge. It seems to me that their appropriate response would be the expectation that the Holy Spirit should lead her to the expected truth over time, and not to condemn her to hell in your own mind because she is at variance with your law.

There is only One Holy Spirit and He does not contradict Himself.

Your church says that divorce is not sinful.

The Catholic Church says that it is. So does the Bible. This is what you call “legalism”?

Cat Herder, you are on my ignore list. I made the mistake of viewing your post anyway under the mistaken assumption that you might have something substantive to add.

Your lie about my church and its stand on divorce is slanderous. My church in no way teaches that divorce is not sinful. You are making that up out of thin air. I will point out that the Catholic church has no problem with divorce either, except you are expected to never marry again. My church will allow divorced people to remarry if the dissolution of the marriage conforms to the exception given by Jesus in Matthew 5 and 19; that the innocent divorcee can remarry if the divorcing spouse has committed adultery. I do view the Catholic church’s teaching that ignores that exception to be an example of non-scriptural legalism.

Reply if you must, but I will view no further posts of yours. I also will not respond on any other questions regarding my opinions on divorce because that is not the point of this thread.

 

[Cruxis117]

It’s not my opinion as much as it seems to be the opinion of other Catholics on this forum.

There is a thread on the moral theology forum where a Catholic woman is being clobbered by other Catholics over her questions about birth control. Post after post has told her that if her conscience doesn’t conform the what the church teaches then her conscience is wrong.

My understanding is that if the Catholic believer really cannot find agreement between their conscience and church teaching, then they are expected to do what the church says regardless. Any Catholic who would follow their conscience in contradiction to church teaching is engaged in mortal sin.

IMO, that contradicts many verses in the bible that promise an indwelling of the Holy Spirit that will work to conform our lives to God’s will. I don’t see how it differs from Mosaic legalism to be told you have to follow words written by human hands regardless of the individual’s conscience.

I don’t believe she is sinning if her conscience is truly leading her. That is between her and God, not between her and the Catholic in the pew next to her. Otherwise what use is it to be sealed with the Holy Spirit? Use of birth control might not be God’s will for her, but that’s not for other Catholics to judge. It seems to me that their appropriate response would be the expectation that the Holy Spirit should lead her to the expected truth over time, and not to condemn her to hell in your own mind because she is at variance with your law.

While it is agreed that the Holy Spirit will work to conform our lives to God’s will, that does not mean we are to not reprove one another for the sins against one another that we commit. For example:

-Luke 17:3
-Proverbs 24:24-25
-2 Timothy 4:2
-Galatians 2:11
-Proverbs 27:5-6
-1 Timothy 5:20

These all speak of one reproving, or correcting, one another when falling into error. Church teaching is meant to lead us to God, to bring us to him. While it seems legalistic, you would certainly correct someone who believed that Jesus was merely a prophet, and called themself Christian, yes? And you would correct someone, who truly believed that abortion was the moral thing to do, yes? Both of these people could be truly following their conscience as being lead, however it still constitutes as error. For we are to “stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter”. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

If everyone ‘followed their conscience’ and were not lead by the teachings passed down, we would have hundreds if not thousands of churches starting up in nations around the world, all passing on parts of the truth and neglecting others. Alas, even now this is currently going on in our world today.

 

[davidv]

It’s not my opinion as much as it seems to be the opinion of other Catholics on this forum.

There is a thread on the moral theology forum where a Catholic woman is being clobbered by other Catholics over her questions about birth control. Post after post has told her that if her conscience doesn’t conform the what the church teaches then her conscience is wrong.

A reading of the Catechism beginning at article 1776 with particular attention to articles 1783-1785 and 1790-1794 would indicate that indeed this is the Church’s teaching.

My understanding is that if the Catholic believer really cannot find agreement between their conscience and church teaching, then they are expected to do what the church says regardless. Any Catholic who would follow their conscience in contradiction to church teaching is engaged in mortal sin.

Not necessarily mortal, but a sin nonetheless.

IMO, that contradicts many verses in the bible that promise an indwelling of the Holy Spirit that will work to conform our lives to God’s will. I don’t see how it differs from Mosaic legalism to be told you have to follow words written by human hands regardless of the individual’s conscience.

The Church, as the body of Christ, is enlighted, as it has been since Pentecost, by the Holy Spirit to be guided to all truth. Individuals are not granted this priviledge. Is it it legalism to state that it is sinful to disobey the commandment to not commit adultery?

I don’t believe she is sinning if her conscience is truly leading her.

As per the Catechism, her conscience can err in judgement and would concluded incorrectly, if she has gone against Church teaching.

That is between her and God, not between her and the Catholic in the pew next to her.

Agreed. However the question was asked and an object answer was given that indicated an error in judgement.

Otherwise what use is it to be sealed with the Holy Spirit? Use of birth control might not be God’s will for her, but that’s not for other Catholics to judge.

Stating what is sinful is not be judgemental of the persons salvation.

It seems to me that their appropriate response would be the expectation that the Holy Spirit should lead her to the expected truth over time, and not to condemn her to hell in your own mind because she is at variance with your law.

Errors in judgement are due to things other than the Holy Spirit leading.

{snip}

 

[Cat_Herder]

Cat Herder, you are on my ignore list. I made the mistake of viewing your post anyway under the mistaken assumption that you might have something substantive to add.

Your lie about my church and its stand on divorce is slanderous.

That’s a serious accusation and so I have to answer it whether or not you are reading.

I am a former A/Ger and I know many A/Gers who are divorced and remarried. Neither their AG churches nor any higher tribunal has passed on the divorces in any way. There is no other reasonable conclusion than that the AG permits divorce and remarriage. If you want to correct me, fine, but please don’t call me a liar.

I will point out that the Catholic church has no problem with divorce either, except you are expected to never marry again.

False. Divorce does not exist in the Catholic Church. A civil divorce is only tolerated for the protection of the spouse or children and even then the parties are still married til death do them part.

My church will allow divorced people to remarry if the dissolution of the marriage conforms to the exception given by Jesus in Matthew 5 and 19; that the innocent divorcee can remarry if the divorcing spouse has committed adultery. I do view the Catholic church’s teaching that ignores that exception to be an example of non-scriptural legalism.

This is what you are referring to:

[bibledrb]Mt 5:32[/bibledrb]

Jesus does not say that divorce is justified if one spouse commits adultery. He simply says “except for unchastity” which is not the same thing. Here is a whole thread on that issue.

Reply if you must, but I will view no further posts of yours. I also will not respond on any other questions regarding my opinions on divorce because that is not the point of this thread.

I asked a question. That’s all I did.

 

[Scoobyshme]

That’s a serious accusation and so I have to answer it whether or not you are reading.

I am a former A/Ger and I know many A/Gers who are divorced and remarried. Neither their AG churches nor any higher tribunal has passed on the divorces in any way. There is no other reasonable conclusion than that the AG permits divorce and remarriage. If you want to correct me, fine, but please don’t call me a liar.

False. Divorce does not exist in the Catholic Church. A civil divorce is only tolerated for the protection of the spouse or children and even then the parties are still married til death do them part.

This is what you are referring to:

[bibledrb]Mt 25:30[/bibledrb]

Jesus does not say that divorce is justified if one spouse commits adultery. He simply says “except for unchastity” which is not the same thing. Here is a whole thread on that issue.

I asked a question. That’s all I did.

My guess is that he’s nervous about being here in the first place. Like a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs! And probably because of that (his perspective only), he feels about as welcome as a rattlesnake at a square dance. Hence, he’s probably a tad defensive to begin with. Anything we say will seem scary.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Anything we say will seem scary.

Well, I’ve reflected on my question to the OP and realized that in asking it, I actually deployed a Weapon of Mass Instruction (WMI), namely, the divorce argument. God hates divorce (Mal. 2:16), man has no power to separate a marriage, and the Catholic Church is the only one that prohibits divorce accordingly, therefore the Catholic Church is the real deal and teaches authoritatively.

WMIs generally and quickly end apologetics debates, but they unfortunately lead to side effects like thread derailing (when used online) and making people angry and defensive (whether online or IRL). I apologize for the fallout and hence have made this post to try and redirect the thread back to the authority of the Church’s moral teaching, which I think is what the OP is getting at.

 

[PLeeD]

OK, one more comment on divorce since I saw Scooby’s quotation.

I assure you that in my church (that is, the particular church congregation where I am a member) the only weddings that our pastor performs are those where the individuals involved are either a) never married, b) widowed, or c) fit the narrow exception Jesus allows for in Matt 5 and 19. To my knowledge my pastor hasn’t performed any wedding ceremony where this is not the case.

Now, if a married couple whose members don’t meet up with the above cases, who were married in some other church, comes to our church, I don’t think they would be turned away for membership. They’re situation is between them and God. Our church, and the individuals in our church, won’t reject them.

As to the official AoG position on divorce, I’m not aware if they even have one. If they do, I doubt it’s anything along the lines of “[The AoG] church says that divorce is not sinful.” Since it is not true, I maintain that making that sweeping statement about my church is a lie.

 

[PLeeD]

There are a couple of different issues here.

One is how should Christians treat those other Christians who they believe to be sinning. What is going on in that birth control thread is way beyond charitable correction. I find it quite appalling to treat someone, a sister in Christ, that way. That’s not what my question is about, though.

If one could obtain righteousness by following the written word, then Christ died for nothing, right?

The question is, how can one set of written commandments be substituted for another set of written commandments at the expense of any leading of the Holy Spirit? That’s not a relationship with God or Jesus, it’s a relationship at best with the church, and at worst with a dead document. When I read the bible I get a different picture of how we are supposed to conduct ourselves, and what our spiritual life is to be like.

EDIT: Oh, and BTW, thanks for all the (except for one) charitable responses! I understand that Catholics hold the teaching of the church equal with scripture and all. Still I think I’m asking a reasonable question, and one that must have a better and more reasoned answer. Where does the bible allow for something like the catechism to carry the weight that it does? If that authority is derived from sacred tradition with no scriptural support, then there is probably no point in continuing the discussion.

EDIT 2: Regarding my last comment about the lie, I should be more charitable and retract that. I’m sorry for saying it Cat Herder. All I can say is that whatever experience you have with AoG is not universal. You will remain on my ignore list, and I won’t view your posts any more, because your original statement, not to mention your Matt 25 quote, is an attack on my faith.