Too many binding rules?

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Well, I’ve posted about this before, long ago, but I thought I would bring it up again. I was scanning through the radio stations while driving today, and I came upon a program that was discussing Rick Warren (author of The Purpose Driven Life) and some of what he had been doing. The hosts, Tom and Dave, did not really seem to approve. I was intrigued, so I kept on listening. I went inside a friend’s house for a few minutes, and when I came back, the hosts were talking about Catholicism. “This should be interesting,” I thought to myself and continued to listen. Well, lo and behold, Dave was the famous Dave Hunt. Most of what they said was not remotely credible. For example, they attacked the Real Presence because Christ’s body would have to be in many places at once, and the whole doctrine was simply “not rational.” They said that the deuterocanonicals were “added” to the Bible at the Council of Trent, etc…

They did say one thing that made me think, though. I can’t remember the exact number, but they mentioned how the Catholic Church has an enormous number of manmade regulations, many of which affect the salvation of people. Basically, the accusation was that the Catholic Church had created rules whereby people would be damned if they did not follow them. They weren’t scared by this, of course, as they did not believe the Catholic Church had the authority to create such rules. They were opposed to the Catholic Church for creating these rules, however.

Now, the Orthodox (who have far more credibility) have also made a similar accusation about the Catholic Church. As some of you know, on my search, I have also considered joining the Orthodox Church. I have often been very sympathetic to the Orthodox viewpoint, particularly when they say that the Catholic Church has made it harder to get into Heaven by using its “binding” power a great deal more than it should.

Here is the question, then. Has the Catholic Church made it more difficult for people to get into Heaven, by creating rules which have damnation as the penalty for breaking them?

I am in RCIA, and I would very much like to join the Catholic Church. My studies have led me to believe it is true, even against the objections put forward by the Orthodox. However, this accusation is troubling, and I would like to resolve it. I thank all of you for your help!

God bless!

 

[Magicsilence]

The problem is, the perspective here is all wrong.

It is not just another Church with its set of rules.

To truly join the Church means to believe in Jesus Christ. Going to mass once a week, and remembering Our Lord’s death on a friday are hardly things that should need to be enforced.

I believe most rules are a condemnation of sin, and the others (Mass on Sunday, no meat of Friday) are simply things that any good Catholic should be doing anyway.

The rules are there so that if we become lax, we can get a wakeup call so to speak.

Because let us imagine that there were no rules at all, and we started to miss mass on a Sunday, to forget Our Lord on Friday, could we really say that we were even Christians?

Peace and God Bless

 

[Verbum]

Hi Iambic,

I would very much like to learn about these rules, because I have been a Catholic all my life, and I don’t know about them. It used to be that we could not eat meat on Friday, but that is largely done away with, at least where I live. (We are encouraged to do something special on Fridays.)

Going to Mass on Sunday, that is observing the Lord’s Day, is a commandment of God. Not a church rule.

Frankly, I can’t think of anything. What people might think of as “rules” are commandment of God or natural law. Would you consider the ban on abortion a “rule”? The indissolubility of marriage a “rule”?

If anyone talks to you about that, ask them to state a “rule” that the Church has made. I think you will fin them either stumped or coming out with a statement that you will at once recognize as ridiculous.

Verbum

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Yeah, they didn’t get specific on any rules…I think the weekly Mass requirement, Holy Days of obligation, the former “no meat on Fridays” thing would all be examples. I guess the question would be, “If a new rule brings some people closer to God, while at the same time condemning some people to Hell, is it really a good rule?”

To use an example. Bob tells his son that he must exercise every morning, and that if he does not, Bob will kick him out of the house and have nothing to do with him. Now, this exercise will certainly be good for Bob’s son, but is the risk of the loss of the relationship really worth it?

 

[Victorious]

Here is the question, then. Has the Catholic Church made it more difficult for people to get into Heaven, by creating rules which have damnation as the penalty for breaking them?

That these radio guys buy into this line of reasoning just goes to show how little they understand the Catholic faith. Damnation is not a penalty for breaking rules: it is the consequence of dying unrepentent in a state of mortal sin. Neither the Church nor God sends people to hell; people go to hell because they choose to be eternally separated from God. Besides, most (if not all) rules, like the Sunday obligation or the requirement to marry in the Church or abstinence on Fridays of Lent, can be dispensed from or excused for good cause. The real problem with deliberate rule-breaking without dispensation or sufficient excuse is not that the world is a worse place for Catholics having eaten meat on Friday during Lent, but an underlying spirit of disobedience and rebellion against lawful authority.

So far from making it harder to get into heaven, the Catholic Church makes it easier for people to get into heaven by providing us with the fullness of the Gospel and of the Christian faith, and, above all, the sacraments. It may be possible to get into heaven without being in the Church, just as it’s possible to swim across the Atlantic. But why swim when you can take a ship?

 

[scylla]

Most people who instead of following God and seeking to do His will look to find what is the least possible needed to do. It is common for people to do this. Most of these people are the ones who complain about rules.
Who really cares if I have to go to Church on Sunday, I know that is the minimum I should do, and I willingly do it. Rules give us guidelines and freedom. Without rules we don’t know what should be done if we are to be obedient.
If we are to be obedient we will look at the rules as guidelines not as constraining.
If I don’t know that I should remember Jesus’s Sacrifice in a way on Fridays then I miss an opportunity to show my love of Jesus and grow spiritually. If I have to make up my own rules then I really am not submitting to anything and pretty much set the rules myself.
Which is more in line with an obedient faith, one that is defined or one which I define.

Anyone disagreeing with Catholicism has to look for ways to disagree, no matter how poor the arguement is.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[geezerbob]

I prefer to look at the “rules” from a positive standpoint. We are called to do two things: Love God and love our neighbor. All of the rules that people complain about are there to help guide us on our journey into eternal life and should not be considered as stumbling blocks. God does forgive, you know. Indeed, most of the Bible is an expansion on these two commandments, a “how to” book, if you will. In my opinion, it’s all about perspective.

 

[Magicsilence]

Yeah, they didn’t get specific on any rules…I think the weekly Mass requirement, Holy Days of obligation, the former “no meat on Fridays” thing would all be examples. I guess the question would be, “If a new rule brings some people closer to God, while at the same time condemning some people to Hell, is it really a good rule?”

To use an example. Bob tells his son that he must exercise every morning, and that if he does not, Bob will kick him out of the house and have nothing to do with him. Now, this exercise will certainly be good for Bob’s son, but is the risk of the loss of the relationship really worth it?

The analogy is flawed.

Let us say we are running a race that we MUST win (i.e to get to heaven).

To help us, the Church sets up gymnasiums, health spa’s, free personal coaches, etc…

Now, if someone makes use of those things they will win the race.

But, if someone doesnt use them, how can they expect to win?

Are we supposed to imagine that people can just sit back and do nothing and then win a race?

Going to hell (or losing the race) is a natural consequence of not using the things the Church has provided. They are there for everyone to use.

Not going to mass on a Sunday means no Eucharist, and if you are not receiving the Eucharist can we really expect to be able to fight the evil one?

Peace and God Bless.

 

[Atreyu]

Have you read the Didache, IP? It seems to me that the rules today are a cake-walk compared to apostolic times!

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

The analogy is flawed.

All analogies are flawed…

Let us say we are running a race that we MUST win (i.e to get to heaven)…

…Going to hell (or losing the race) is a natural consequence of not using the things the Church has provided. They are there for everyone to use.

Here is the question, then. In this analogy, is losing the race really a natural consequence of not using the Church’s training tools, or is it the Church itself that declares the athlete to be a loser?

When the Church says a person is damned if they skip mass and then die without going to Confession, is the person damned because of their sin alone (i.e. the Church is just testifying to a pre-existing reality), or are they damned because the Church, using its authority, declared them to be so?

Not going to mass on a Sunday means no Eucharist, and if you are not receiving the Eucharist can we really expect to be able to fight the evil one?

I’ve heard it said, though, that people are only required to receive the Eucharist once a year. At any rate, I do think people should attend mass every Sunday; I’m not rebelling against the rule. What I am troubled by is the Church-instituted consequence for failure.

Here’s another example: Bob wakes up on Sunday morning feeling slightly ill. He would like to stay home, but he’s not sure if he’s sick enough to skip mass without meriting eternal damnation. This just seems like a ridiculous thing to have to worry over. How sick does someone have to be to skip mass without risking their soul? Would someone like Bob have their mortal sin downgraded to a venial sin, perhaps?

I’m really not mocking Catholic teaching. I’m just concerned that the Church’s declared penalty in this matter may end up damning people who, aside from a little laziness one Sunday morning, were otherwise living holy lives.

God bless!

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Have you read the Didache, IP? It seems to me that the rules today are a cake-walk compared to apostolic times!

Yep! And, like I said, I’m not opposed to rules, even strict ones. I’m just wary of any Church-created rule that has damnation as the penalty for breaking it. After all, the Church is here to save people, not condemn them.

God bless!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…he’s not sure if he’s sick enough to skip mass without meriting eternal damnation.

Full advertence and perfect consent are conditions for a mortal sin, right? How do you suppose “he’s not sure” relates to these?

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Full advertence and perfect consent are conditions for a mortal sin, right? How do you suppose “he’s not sure” relates to these?

Hmmhh…good point. So, skipping mass only becomes a mortal sin when a person is absolutely certain they should go and that it’s a mortal sin if they don’t, yet still they deliberately choose not to go?

 

[prv]

The problem is, the perspective here is all wrong.

It is not just another Church with its set of rules.

To truly join the Church means to believe in Jesus Christ. Going to mass once a week, and remembering Our Lord’s death on a friday are hardly things that should need to be enforced.

I believe most rules are a condemnation of sin, and the others (Mass on Sunday, no meat of Friday) are simply things that any good Catholic should be doing anyway.

The rules are there so that if we become lax, we can get a wakeup call so to speak.

Because let us imagine that there were no rules at all, and we started to miss mass on a Sunday, to forget Our Lord on Friday, could we really say that we were even Christians?

Peace and God Bless

I noticed you are a Maronite Catholic. I attended a Maronite Mass, twice----on one of the bulletins, the Holy Name Society at St. George Maronite Catholic Church in San Antonio submitted a piece which said that the Church obliges us to attend Mass not to burden us, but to make sure we receive the spiritual food (the Eucharist, his own Body and Blood) in a world which Christ said would hate us. And if we go around even here at Catholic Answers Forums—do we not see that this is so? (This is not to disparage those who come here with general and honest inquiry.)

 

[VociMike]

Just thinking out loud here, but let’s look at God’s first and special people, the Jews. Catholic rules are nothing compared to the rules God Himself gave to the Jews. Did He do it just to make their lives difficult and miserable? I would think not. But He did do it. So there is something about rules and obedience, even “pointless” rules (as many might see them) that is very, very important to God.

So rather than condemn the Church for “too many” rules (what is the perfect number of rules, anyway?), maybe these people should consider the situation of the Jews, and the fact that Christianity is Judaism made new. Not totally reinvented, but reinterpreted and reborn through Christ.

Having said all that, I don’t find all these rules at all oppressive. I take joy in submitting to them. I take joy in going to Mass on Sunday when I could find so many “better” uses for my time. I take joy in giving up meat on Fridays. I take joy in all of these rules because they help keep Christ before my eyes. Not Christ who demands my obedience, but Christ who deserves my obedience in all that He asks, through His Church.

What are all these rules? They are about putting aside self for God. They are about all the little steps to full self-giving perfection. They are about the very self-donating life that is the Trinitarian God, in Who’s nature we will one day participate.

 

[NotWorthy]

To me it comes down to this.

If you believe that Christ truly gave the Church the power to bind and loose (and it sounds like you do), then wouldn’t it seem that Christ would understand just how the Church would use this power? Why would Christ do this, unless He trusted the Church to use it justly.

 

[Guardian]

Okay, let’s go from the general to the more specific case.

The fact is the Church does not damn anyone. It can’t damn anyone, it just does not have the capability. You’ll also notice the Church has never made a statement on whether a person who physically died is in hell or not, because the Church doesn’t know. The only thing the Church can do is state the truth.

Now, since the post here has been discussing mass attendance, I will discuss that. First, it is important to realize what is really going on here. It is only a sin to skip mass if you don’t have a good reason. If you are sick, don’t have transportation, etc., it’s not a sin. However, if you have no good reason to miss mass, then why would you miss it? The only reason is because you put your own desires above God’s. That, by definition, is a grave offense. Whether or not it is a mortal sin, however, is if you know it is grave matter and you deliberately do it anyway.

 

[StMarkEofE]

Well, I’ve posted about this before, long ago, but I thought I would bring it up again. I was scanning through the radio stations while driving today, and I came upon a program that was discussing Rick Warren (author of The Purpose Driven Life) and some of what he had been doing. The hosts, Tom and Dave, did not really seem to approve. I was intrigued, so I kept on listening. I went inside a friend’s house for a few minutes, and when I came back, the hosts were talking about Catholicism. “This should be interesting,” I thought to myself and continued to listen. Well, lo and behold, Dave was the famous Dave Hunt. Most of what they said was not remotely credible. For example, they attacked the Real Presence because Christ’s body would have to be in many places at once, and the whole doctrine was simply “not rational.” They said that the deuterocanonicals were “added” to the Bible at the Council of Trent, etc…

They did say one thing that made me think, though. I can’t remember the exact number, but they mentioned how the Catholic Church has an enormous number of manmade regulations, many of which affect the salvation of people. Basically, the accusation was that the Catholic Church had created rules whereby people would be damned if they did not follow them. They weren’t scared by this, of course, as they did not believe the Catholic Church had the authority to create such rules. They were opposed to the Catholic Church for creating these rules, however.

Now, the Orthodox (who have far more credibility) have also made a similar accusation about the Catholic Church. As some of you know, on my search, I have also considered joining the Orthodox Church. I have often been very sympathetic to the Orthodox viewpoint, particularly when they say that the Catholic Church has made it harder to get into Heaven by using its “binding” power a great deal more than it should.

Here is the question, then. Has the Catholic Church made it more difficult for people to get into Heaven, by creating rules which have damnation as the penalty for breaking them?

I am in RCIA, and I would very much like to join the Catholic Church. My studies have led me to believe it is true, even against the objections put forward by the Orthodox. However, this accusation is troubling, and I would like to resolve it. I thank all of you for your help!

God bless!

You will find that the Eastern mindset (Orthodox and Eastern Catholics including Marianites) of attending church on Sundays have more to do with missed opportunities than obligations. We look at this a little differently than the Romans do. There it is for all to participate in. God’s greatest gift the Liturgy and the reception of His Body and Blood and for those who are not willing to participate are loosing out on this most wonderful of ways to receive our Lord on Sunday. Obligations conoted demands and God presents His gifts to be received not forced.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello Lambic Pen,

In 1950sish it was believed by average Catholics that Protestants went to hell. Church anathema’s, which damn souls to dicipline the flock, were targetted at Catholics, seeing that the Protestants all went to hell anyway.

Now the Church teaches that Protestants are within the bosom of the Catholic Church for salvation but outside soul damning papal binding Church anathemas because they are not Catholic. That seems a bit unfair!

In 1983 Pope John Paul II rewrote the CCC without the anathemas in it. Most Catholics did not even know he did this. I have yet to hear if Pope John Paul II “loost” Church binding anathemas or simply disregarded Church binding anathemas. In the modern Church most leaders simply say that the Church cannot damn souls with anathemas and never could. This is not how I understand two thousand years of past Popes and Church teachings on Church anathema.

Please visit Throwing Stones

Here is a sample of how the CCC read before Pope John Paul II rewrote the CCC in 1983.

CANONI.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.
CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.
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.
[Page 45] 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 VI.-If any one saith, that it is not in man’s power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of Himself, in such wise that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul; let him be anathema.
CANON VII.-If any one saith, that all works done before Justification, in whatsoever way they be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; or that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more grievously he sins: let him be anathema.
CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that the fear of hell,-whereby, by grieving for our sins, we flee unto the mercy of God, or refrain from sinning,-is a sin, or makes sinners worse; let him be anathema.
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
CANON X.-If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

continued:

 

[Steven_Merten]

continued from above:
Anathema

…“To understand the word anathema”, says Vigouroux, “we should first go back to the real meaning of herem of which it is the equivalent. Herem comes from the word haram, to cut off, to separate, to curse, and indicates that which is cursed and condemned to be cut off or exterminated, whether a person or a thing, and in consequence, that which man is forbidden to make use of.”…

…but anathematized, and that he may be stricken by the sword of Heaven"…

…“Know that Engeltrude is not only under the ban of excommunication, which separates her from the society of the brethren, but under the anathema, which separates from the body of Christ, which is the Church.”…

…“If, after having been deposed from office, he is incorrigible, he should first be excommunicted; but if he perseveres in his contumacy he should be stricken with the sword of anathema; but if plunging to the depths of the abyss, he reaches the point where he despises these penalties, he should be given over to the secular arm.”…

…In passing this sentence, the pontiff is vested in amice, stole, and a violet cope, wearing his mitre, and assisted by twelve priests clad in their surplices and holding lighted candles. He takes his seat in front of the altar or in some other suitable place, amid pronounces the formula of anathema which ends with these words: Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N-- himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate , so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment."

He who dares to despise our decision, let him be stricken with anathema maranatha, i.e. may he be damned at the coming of the Lord, may he have his place with Judas Iscariot, he and his companions.

Quoted from: New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia - Anathema