Too many laws

  • Thread starter Thread starter flick427
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
ByzCath:
While Eastern Traditions may express things in a different manner, it teaches the same as Western Tradition.

Now when we get down to dicipline, it may be different but that is ok.
Dear ByzCath,

Herein lies the problem. We “Joe sixpack” Catholics have been recommended by others in this very thread to leave the figuring to the lawyers and mind our own business because we can’t figure it out. Yaquibos asks if we know what tradition is? Well, we do in a generic sense, but now you’re distinguishing between teachings and discipline. By the time it comes down to us “little people” via a sermon, letter in the bulletin, or diocesan paper, we have no idea whether it’s teaching, tradition, binding, not binding, or what. Perhaps if we were lawyers we could ascertain that from reading very carefully – assuming the author or speaker is taking sufficient care in their presentation – but it all sounds the same to me, rules, teachings, suggestions, etc. When we ask for clarification, we typically get an answer that is so technical I am more confused after I hear an answer than before. That’s one of the reasons I like this forum; you can keep up until you finally get an answer from somebody that makes sense.

Ain’t technology wonderful?

Alan
 
Even the APOSTLE Paul says:
“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!” ( Galatians 1:8-9 )
Note that when Paul wrote this, there was as yet no Scripture! Paul doesn’t make reference to scripture, but rather enjoins people to hold fast to what he had preached to them, and what they had received through his preaching. Preaching is oral tradition.

But back to Canon Law. A priest once showed me his book of Canon Law. It was just ONE book! Small printing, yes, and quite a few pages, but just one book. Having been a federal bureaucrat in my previous life, I was astonished. “You can govern a worldwide Church with that?” I said. Compared to the U.S. Code, Canon Law is like a drop compared to an ocean.
 
40.png
YAQUBOS:
Peace be with you!

You can’t learn the Law of God unless you are born again. When you are born again, you don’t need huge books, but God will write His Law in your heart. You just walk according to His Word.

In Love,
Yaqubos†
If you violate the doctrine of the Church which is the body of chirst which is the spouse of the Holy Spirit, you will incur sin.

Please do not be a simplistic and minimalist like the Protestant.
 
40.png
YAQUBOS:
My friend, Tradition is judged by the rule of Scripture! If anyone ( including what you call “Tradition” ) says anything opposite to the Scripture, then it is wrong!
Are you a Catholic? You’re sounding like Aprotestant.

I have argued against Protestant erroneous conception that everything must be judged by the scripture (scripture is the rule of faith).

Please learn some more Church father to realize that Scripture is NOT the sole rule of faith.

cin.org/users/jgallegos/rule.htm
 
beng3000:
If you violate the doctrine of the Church which is the body of chirst which is the spouse of the Holy Spirit, you will incur sin.

Please do not be a simplistic and minimalist like the Protestant.
Dear beng3000,

Yes, but again, that means that I have to know all the rules that apply to me so I have to be an expert, or risk sinning and not even knowing it. Using the legal analogy, we’ve heard we don’t have to know the entire federal, state and local codes, but just enough to apply to what we’re doing, usually available where we need it. The problem is that doesn’t completely protect us as “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”

In the case of sin, if I sin without even knowing it, is it still sin? How would I know that I need to confess something I never knew was wrong? When Jesus said, “forgive them for they know not what they do” does that mean that they still have to be truly sorry and go to confession before receiving the Eucharist to remove the sin, or that they committed no sin in the first place?

The most encouraging thing I’ve heard in this thread is that canon laws are not intended to bind absolutely in any given concrete situation (or something to that effect). In other words, they are guidelines for good living, which can be obeyed or not. That sounds nice, but according to what you and some others say I’m still incurring sin.

If one has to repent or be punished for sins they were not aware of, then I say there are DEFINITELY too many laws. If we are not held responsible in any ways for sinning when we didn’t even know we were sinning, then we can discuss further what criteria we should use for whether there are too many laws.

Alan
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
Dear beng3000,

Yes, but again, that means that I have to know all the rules that apply to me so I have to be an expert, or risk sinning and not even knowing it. Using the legal analogy, we’ve heard we don’t have to know the entire federal, state and local codes, but just enough to apply to what we’re doing, usually available where we need it. The problem is that doesn’t completely protect us as “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
You are bound to learn. Your ignorance will only excuse you if it’s invincible. If it’s vincible than you are culpable, thus even if you do not know the sin but if you choose not to know it, you are sinning.
In the case of sin, if I sin without even knowing it, is it still sin?
See above.
How would I know that I need to confess something I never knew was wrong?
Ask the priest. Do not hide anything.
When Jesus said, “forgive them for they know not what they do” does that mean that they still have to be truly sorry and go to confession before receiving the Eucharist to remove the sin, or that they committed no sin in the first place?
You can not think that if one does not know the full consequence of sin then one is not culpable. If you tell your kid, “Don’t put your finger into the electric socket, it’s danngerous” he is supposed to obey it. If then your kid disobey and put his finger into the socket and you punished him, he has no right to say, “But I didn’t know it’s gonna hurt that bad” and act all cute.

Just because he doesn’t know the full consequence of his disobedience does not excuse him for the punishment.

WE ALL do not know what the consequence of our sin is. If we know 100% no human would ever commit any sin (many saints have suggest this, St Paul of the Cross is one of them). That is why we put our faith to God and obey what he said.

Jesus prayer to the Father about those who persecuted him does not mean that these people are off the hook.
The most encouraging thing I’ve heard in this thread is that canon laws are not intended to bind absolutely in any given concrete situation (or something to that effect). In other words, they are guidelines for good living, which can be obeyed or not. That sounds nice, but according to what you and some others say I’m still incurring sin.
Well yes you are (gonna incur sin)

Do you feel jolly and happy because you get to sidestepped rules?

Dude, this mentality is…
If one has to repent or be punished for sins they were not aware of, then I say there are DEFINITELY too many laws. If we are not held responsible in any ways for sinning when we didn’t even know we were sinning, then we can discuss further what criteria we should use for whether there are too many laws.

Alan
Laws are made to guide us. Law is not the bad guy here. Beside God gave you the grace to repent from your sin (without you could’t repent) and also there’s the Church with the sacraments ready to help you.
 
The most encouraging thing I’ve heard in this thread is that canon laws are not intended to bind absolutely in any given concrete situation (or something to that effect). In other words, they are guidelines for good living, which can be obeyed or not. That sounds nice, but according to what you and some others say I’m still incurring sin.
Anybody who tells you that you’re sinning by violating some obscure canon that never gets discussed is simply misinformed. The canons are there for a purpose, and the purpose isn’t to trap people into losing their salvation. As long as you’re not being obstinate or deliberately ignoring canons, you should be fine; your ignorance would not ordinarily be culpable if you make reasonable efforts to learn your obligations and you rely on your pastor. The good thing about Catholicism is that you can go to your priest or bishop for pastoral guidance if there’s something in particular that worries you.
 
40.png
renee1258:
I’m assuming that the majority of us are American citizens? Do we know all the laws of governments, from federal to state to local?

No.

But when we have a problem, we look them up.
Good analogy.

You don’t need to study US Code, nor State nor City Codes to be a good citizen. However, as a good citizen, you are bound to obey the above codes, whether you’ve bothered to educate yourself concerning them or not. Same with ecclesiastical laws regarding being a Catholic citizen.

My Daily Roman Missal summarizes the main precepts of the Catholic Church (fast days, holy days, other binding obligations for Catholics), so there’s not much effort required of Catholics to know what they are bound to as Catholic citizens.

Lack of knowledge is not the problem for most Catholics. Lack of discipline is. And in many cases, lack of belief in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
 
40.png
JPrejean:
Anybody who tells you that you’re sinning by violating some obscure canon that never gets discussed is simply misinformed. The canons are there for a purpose, and the purpose isn’t to trap people into losing their salvation. As long as you’re not being obstinate or deliberately ignoring canons, you should be fine; your ignorance would not ordinarily be culpable if you make reasonable efforts to learn your obligations and you rely on your pastor. The good thing about Catholicism is that you can go to your priest or bishop for pastoral guidance if there’s something in particular that worries you.
Don’t encourage him too much.
 
Don’t encourage him too much.
I don’t think Alan is a nascent rebel just looking for a rationalization from a Catholic to miss Mass every week and to eat T-bones on Good Friday. 😃

It’s important to get back to the concept of Christian freedom sometimes. While we can’t “kick at the goads” too much, we also have to remember that His yoke is light and easy to bear. It’s not meant to be a tremendous burden, and if it seems to be one, it could be that we are making a mountain out of a molehill. In those cases, we must recognize that it is when we seem weak and unable to go on that we see the need for Christ most clearly.
 
40.png
JPrejean:
I don’t think Alan is a nascent rebel just looking for a rationalization from a Catholic to miss Mass every week and to eat T-bones on Good Friday. 😃

It’s important to get back to the concept of Christian freedom sometimes. While we can’t “kick at the goads” too much, we also have to remember that His yoke is light and easy to bear. It’s not meant to be a tremendous burden, and if it seems to be one, it could be that we are making a mountain out of a molehill. In those cases, we must recognize that it is when we seem weak and unable to go on that we see the need for Christ most clearly.
Dude, look at his post. That is why I came down a bit hard.
 
40.png
flick427:
I read this quote: “Canon law is binding upon all Catholics. Breaking the law is a sin”.
Where in heavens name did you read that? Or are you not quoting accurately?
40.png
flick427:
How grave of a matter is it when that Cathlic education systems have fallen short of teaching things to us corectly?
ok, back to morality 101. To commit a mortal sin, 10 the matter must be serious; 2) you must know it is serious; and 3) you must fuilly intend the act. If you were never taught the matter was serious (or the flip side, that your act was seriously wrong), no mortal sin.
40.png
flick427:
If I see a bishop doing something how and what can I use in the defense of the church to say “you are wrong” and there is no interpreteation involved?
And what makes you think there is no interpretation involved? That’s why we have lawyers and judges; because there is interpretation involved. Which means that if you really want to know what the law means and requires, you not only have to have the law, but also the regulations which interpret, explain, and make specific the implementation of the law, but also the cases which have involved that law. You also need training in how the law is applied.

He who represents himself has a fool for a client.
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
The problem I have is that most ordinary Catholics with active lives cannot possibly know the laws.
They don’t need to, as the large majority of the laws have nothing to do with them on a day to day manner.
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
It is literally impossible to follow all the laws at the same time, so even a citizen who attempts to do everything right is subject to arbitrary and selective enforcement.
Hogwash. Whoever sold you that old wive’s tale? If the laws don’t apply to you, you cannot follow them simply because of that. But that does not mean you are violating them. They just don’t apply.
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
In the case of the Church, if our own conscience is supposed to do the enforcing, then without an expert knowledge at all the laws, one really cannot know at any given time whether one is sinning so we are no better off here than with secular laws.
Of course you can know if your sinning. Sin requires knowledge that something is wrong. No knowledge, no sin, as there can be no intent.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Lack of knowledge is not the problem for most Catholics. Lack of discipline is. And in many cases, lack of belief in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
I can only say Amen to that.
 
Glory to Jesus Christ!
CANON
From the Greek meaning a “rule” or “standard.” In architecture it is a standard of proportion. In literature it is the authentic list of an author’s works. In music it is the melodic line sung by overlapping voices in strict imitation. In religious terms it represents the authentic books in the Bible or the authoritative prayer of the Eucharist in the Mass or the authoritative law of the church promulgated by ecclesiastical authority.
The Canons were first set out to define doctrine.

The is only one God, and only one Truth, or set of facts and principles about the natural and supernatural “world” or universe.

The first Canons were described in church Councils dealing with heresies, the teachings that were suspected of being un-Apostolic in origin and thereby false. As a result:

Most Protestants today still believe in the Triune God. This is was first laid out in the Canons of the church.

Most Protestants believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, with a human nature and a divine nature, this was set out in the Canons.

Most Protestants believe that the Bible is the Word of God, this was set out in the Canons. The actual set of books of the Bible are called the Canon of Scripture.

Canon Law of the church is actually responsible for the core beliefs of all Christians.

Canons continued to be written to determine governance and policy of the church. For instance, when the faith continued to grow and more and more towns and villages had churches and priests of their own the time came when the areas of authority of the bishops extended out toward the cities of other bishops. No doubt there were cases when some towns had priests sent by two different bishops and that conflict needed to be addressed. We have Canons that tell us that there is to be only one Ordinary Bishop in a place. This is church discipline.

There were different levels of training and background for clerics in distant areas of the world, Canons were written to standardize the qualifications of priests, deacons and bishops, as well as how to ordain them. Another example of church discipline.

When we ask a priest for guidence on religious matters, we expect him to speak for the church, and not for himself. That priest will refer to the Canons, or use a guidebook (or commentary) that is based upon the Canons. There is no independent interpretation of scripture that may cause one minister to say one thing and one to say another.

So Canon Law has it’s place. It helps the church speak with one voice in the Apostolic tradition, it helps reduce confusion.

The situation the Jews had with Law was completely different, some thought that a fastidious observance of the Mosaic law would justify them, regardless of how they thought or felt inside. It is not so for Christians, and Canon Law does not serve that purpose. We rely on the Canons to regulate the teaching and governance of the church. We are saved by what is written in our hearts, and how we live it out.

In modern times we have a Code of Canons, the Canons of the church have been codified in the West and collected into a bound volume. This minimizes the amount of effort it would take to research a concern, and makes study of the Canons easier. The Canons of the Eastern church are not traditionally codified, but Eastern Catholic Sui Iuris churches received their Code of Canons for the first time in the 1990’s. One problem with the Eastern Code is that it is intended to serve for all of the Eastern churches, regardless of Tradition, also there have been some insertions by Rome that probably do not belong there and might be removed later, but overall it serves it’s purpose.

I hope this helps.
 
40.png
otm:
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
It is literally impossible to follow all the laws at the same time, so even a citizen who attempts to do everything right is subject to arbitrary and selective enforcement.
Hogwash. Whoever sold you that old wive’s tale? If the laws don’t apply to you, you cannot follow them simply because of that. But that does not mean you are violating them. They just don’t apply.
Sure, there are many laws that don’t apply to me. There are thousands that do, and I suspect just as many do to you. You say it is hogwash that I cannot follow them all. Are you saying that you personally are capable of following all the local, state and federal laws that apply to you, whether you know about them or not? If Janet Reno had wanted to get at you there is no legal loophole she could have found to do it? If that’s what you’re saying, you must be pretty content; could you score me some of whatever you’re on?
Of course you can know if your sinning. Sin requires knowledge that something is wrong. No knowledge, no sin, as there can be no intent.
Thank you. That’s what I was asking. If there is some rule I don’t know about because nobody ever told me and I never had reason to ask, then it isn’t a sin. In that case, I won’t automatically conclude there are too many laws based on this one objection.

Alan
 
Are you saying that you personally are capable of following all the local, state and federal laws that apply to you, whether you know about them or not? If Janet Reno had wanted to get at you there is no legal loophole she could have found to do it? If that’s what you’re saying, you must be pretty content; could you score me some of whatever you’re on?
Being a lawyer myself, I think you’re far too cynical. Most people actually don’t commit crimes that often, and those tend to be violations of minor regulatory laws (speeding, parking, etc.), many of which are committed deliberately and consciously. Unless you’re a business owner or employer who doesn’t have an attorney, you generally have to work pretty hard to violate a major law. The one exception is probably software or music piracy, which many people seem to do quite casually.
 
beng3000:
You are bound to learn. Your ignorance will only excuse you if it’s invincible. If it’s vincible than you are culpable, thus even if you do not know the sin but if you choose not to know it, you are sinning.

See above.
So you seem to be saying that if it is a willful ignorance, where you should know something but somehow intentionally avoided learning it then it’s a sin.
Ask the priest. Do not hide anything.
This would be impracticable in the situation I’m talking about. What I’m talking about is if there were some rule among the 1700+ canon laws and whatever other rules we’re supposed to abide, plus the teachings in the catechism we’re supposed to follow, plus all the things we are “bound” to believe but maybe never even heard of, that I was guilty of, completely unaware. If so, then the only way I could be sure of not “hiding” such a thing is if I gave the priest a complete diary of my thoughts and deeds since my last confession so he can tell me if there’s anything I didn’t notice.

Certainly if there is something we are unsure about and think we may have sinned, the sacrament of penance is a good place to ask about it. 👍
You can not think that if one does not know the full consequence of sin then one is not culpable. If you tell your kid, “Don’t put your finger into the electric socket, it’s danngerous” he is supposed to obey it. If then your kid disobey and put his finger into the socket and you punished him, he has no right to say, “But I didn’t know it’s gonna hurt that bad” and act all cute.

Just because he doesn’t know the full consequence of his disobedience does not excuse him for the punishment.
Right. I agree with this, since you’re presupposing the child was duly warned in a way that he understood what the rules were. I agree that the child should obey just because you’ve told him. Otherwise, you’re playing “Let’s Make a Deal” with him where he can decide whether the pain of punishment is worth the thrill of disobedience.
Jesus prayer to the Father about those who persecuted him does not mean that these people are off the hook.
It doesn’t? Is the Father going to refuse Jesus’ request to forgive them? Jesus doesn’t have that authority to free them? Please educate me on this. :confused:
Do you feel jolly and happy because you get to sidestepped rules?
I wasn’t talking about the joy of avoiding rules. I was talking about the burden to being held to a volume of rules that experts spend their lives trying to figure out.

Now that you mention it, there have been a few times in my life when I got away with things and felt kind of good about it, in retaliation for being falsely accused of other rules. I trust you wouldn’t know anything about that! 😉
Dude, this mentality is…
brilliant? Thank you. :tiphat:

Alan
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
So you seem to be saying that if it is a willful ignorance, where you should know something but somehow intentionally avoided learning it then it’s a sin.
This would be impracticable in the situation I’m talking about. What I’m talking about is if there were some rule among the 1700+ canon laws and whatever other rules we’re supposed to abide, plus the teachings in the catechism we’re supposed to follow, plus all the things we are “bound” to believe but maybe never even heard of, that I was guilty of, completely unaware. If so, then the only way I could be sure of not “hiding” such a thing is if I gave the priest a complete diary of my thoughts and deeds since my last confession so he can tell me if there’s anything I didn’t notice.
If you:
  1. ask priest
  2. ask others
  3. Look up in the internet
I would think that you’ve done enough. If you still don’t know than you can be excuse.
Certainly if there is something we are unsure about and think we may have sinned, the sacrament of penance is a good place to ask about it. 👍
Most of the times, yes. But not all the time.
It doesn’t? Is the Father going to refuse Jesus’ request to forgive them? Jesus doesn’t have that authority to free them? Please educate me on this. :confused:
It’s complicated. As complicated as predestination VS free will (and it does involve predestination and free will).

Something to ponder is:
  1. Jesus prayed to Father that the “cup” may pass. It did not pass.
  2. Jesus prayed so that His folowers maybe one. We have a schism with the Orthodox (only Orthodox can be considered., not Protestant).
 
40.png
JPrejean:
Being a lawyer myself, I think you’re far too cynical. Most people actually don’t commit crimes that often, and those tend to be violations of minor regulatory laws (speeding, parking, etc.), many of which are committed deliberately and consciously. Unless you’re a business owner or employer who doesn’t have an attorney, you generally have to work pretty hard to violate a major law. The one exception is probably software or music piracy, which many people seem to do quite casually.
I am not a lawyer, but I’ve seen enough bureacracy that I can hardly believe there aren’t a plethora of laws, albeit minor, that I am probably guilty of right now. I’m sure there are things about my house that aren’t up to code. There is probably paperwork I should have done that I haven’t involving one of my six children. I lost some records of the first half of 2004 due to computer crash so I don’t know how I’m going to ascertain, much less accurately report, my self-employment income. I can give a good faith guess.

Maybe I am a bit too cynical. As a Bell Labs engineer, I spent over a year with several groups of lawyers negotiating an intellectual property exchange agreement between two corporations: Lucent Technologies and Mentor Graphics. I was astounded at all the convoluted ways we could get sued if those contracts weren’t perfectly scrutinized.

On the subject at hand, though, I believe the Bible says (ask any Protestant the chapter and verse) that we all have sinned and fall short of the grace of God. I don’t think it’s unrealistic or un-Biblical to believe that it is impossible for any human to obey all the rules of the Church; if it were possible I wouldn’t think the Church would impose a mandatory once-per-year minimum on going to confession.

Oh, and thanks for sticking up for me earlier. You were right; I wasn’t trying to get away with anything, at least not at that particular moment! 😛

Alan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top