Ash Wednesday / Lent

[Fenris]

The RCC requirement is that one be 'baptized' in the Catholic faith before partaking in their sacred ordinances. Mass attendance is actually allowed but not communion, which is the core sacrament (Eucharist) of that faith, and the true essence of "Mass."

This was my understanding as well.

[watchinginawe]

The RCC requirement is that one be 'baptized' in the Catholic faith before partaking in their sacred ordinances. Mass attendance is actually allowed but not communion, which is the core sacrament (Eucharist) of that faith, and the true essence of "Mass."

This was my understanding as well.

This isn't the whole story though since Catholics practice infant baptism. I believe, like in the Godfather, traditionally you are confirmed and take your first Communion. This also is a Sacrament which finishes the work of baptism. Anyway, even then and as I mentioned before, the Catholic church may have reasons to deny one Communion. Communion confirms one's good standing with the church. If you aren't in good standing, you should not partake in Communion.

An example would be divorce. If one divorces and remarries, then they are not in good standing with the church and they should not take Communion.

This all gets to the faith vs works "argument" between Protestantism and Catholicism. Works play an important role in maintaining one's good standing with the Catholic church wherein one is "saved". In Protestantism, one's salvation is through faith and managed primarily with God. This is just a sliver of the real issues at hand, but most are familiar with this.

[Fenris]

This all gets to the faith vs works "argument" between Protestantism and Catholicism. Works play an important role in maintaining one's good standing with the Catholic church wherein one is "saved". In Protestantism, one's salvation is through faith and managed primarily with God. This is just a sliver of the real issues at hand, but most are familiar with this.

And this seems to me to be the real weakness of Catholicism. We can all agree that Judaism is a "works based" (although I prefer the term "rules based" ) religion.

If Christianity is a truly break from Judaism, why then did the Catholic church introduce new rules?  Why not just leave the old rules in place then?

[RabbiKnife]

This all gets to the faith vs works "argument" between Protestantism and Catholicism. Works play an important role in maintaining one's good standing with the Catholic church wherein one is "saved". In Protestantism, one's salvation is through faith and managed primarily with God. This is just a sliver of the real issues at hand, but most are familiar with this.

And this seems to me to be the real weakness of Catholicism. We can all agree that Judaism is a "works based" (although I prefer the term "rules based" ) religion.

If Christianity is a truly break from Judaism, why then did the Catholic church introduce new rules?  Why not just leave the old rules in place then?

Power.  You can only have power if you write the rules.  Since the Catholic group needed new power with a new group they made up new rules

[Fenris]

Power.  You can only have power if you write the rules.  Since the Catholic group needed new power with a new group they made up new rules

The theological wrongness of this bothers me.

[watchinginawe]

This all gets to the faith vs works "argument" between Protestantism and Catholicism. Works play an important role in maintaining one's good standing with the Catholic church wherein one is "saved". In Protestantism, one's salvation is through faith and managed primarily with God. This is just a sliver of the real issues at hand, but most are familiar with this.

And this seems to me to be the real weakness of Catholicism. We can all agree that Judaism is a "works based" (although I prefer the term "rules based" ) religion.

If Christianity is a truly break from Judaism, why then did the Catholic church introduce new rules?  Why not just leave the old rules in place then?

This is of course the famous point of The Apostle Paul's to the Galatians.

Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

This was Paul's argument against requiring the Gentiles to be circumcised and converted to Judaism as part of receiving Christ. Paul said to do so would make Christ then of "no effect unto you" since they put their faith aside to justify themselves with works.

The determination that Gentile converts did not need to be brought under The Law was proclaimed at the Council of Jerusalem. This is recorded in Acts 15 and The Apostle Paul triumphed over the Judaizers.

I think Paul's primary concern as an Apostle was the Gospel and keeping it (the preaching, the practice, etc.) from dilutive influences. But most of this became directed towards gentile converts while the other Apostles largely directed themselves towards Jewish converts.

You make a good point regarding the comparison between Jewish religion and Catholicism. I kind of made a soft point about this in our discussion above but didn't want to press the point. The Jews observe Yom Kippur annually and thus have to continually atone. This is clearly stated in the Bible as well, the Jews were to continually make atonement, and as you suggest a religion of rules to be followed to practice the religion result, all (maybe not all) with Biblical precedent.

Catholicism kind of fell (from a Protestant's view) into Paul's trap of tradition and a religion with rules (another Protestant objection) takes hold. This is another great point of Protestantism as they hold that the Bible (Scripture) is the sole and final authority for all matters of faith and conduct of the believer whereas tradition of the church is additive to the Scripture in Catholicism. Interestingly, Jewish religion probably holds close to Scripture as the final authority as well. Or does it?

[Fenris]

You make a good point regarding the comparison between Jewish religion and Catholicism.

Not a comparison so much as "if you need rules, why get rid of the old rules and introduce new rules?"
And also "If faith alone saves, why does the church have laws for the adherents to follow?"

I think it's a big weakness of Catholicism.

I kind of made a soft point about this in our discussion above but didn't want to press the point. The Jews observe Yom Kippur annually and thus have to continually atone.

Actually, we don't have to wait for Yom Kippur to atone. We ask God for forgiveness for our sins every time that we pray. Because we all fall short, so we try our best, and ask for forgiveness and mercy when we fail.

Catholicism kind of fell (from a Protestant's view) into Paul's trap of tradition and a religion with rules (another Protestant objection) takes hold. This is another great point of Protestantism as they hold that the Bible (Scripture) is the sole and final authority for all matters of faith and conduct of the believer whereas tradition of the church is additive to the Scripture in Catholicism. Interestingly, Jewish religion probably holds close to Scripture as the final authority as well. Or does it?

Well, it's complicated. Because Judaism is a religion of rules (as mentioned) and so a religion of deeds. Faith, while important, is not central. Of course why would someone follow all the rules if they didn't believe? Nonetheless. Now, if you read the bible's rules, some are very clear ("don't steal" for example) and some less so. Even something as simple as keeping the Sabbath. It's the seventh day, but when does the Sabbath start? At midnight? In the morning? The bible says not to work, but what exactly defines "work"? And so the Talmud contained all these rules carried down orally from Sinai, so we believe. It's a compendium of information and logical tools to explain what the law is and how it is to be followed. The value is that Judaism is a very democratic religion in that this information is available to everyone and anyone can study the laws and learn for themselves. In fact, the Talmud states that in some ways, the sage is greater than the prophet, because the prophet can only tell you of communication from God, which a person can accept or reject; but a sage can teach you something and logically explain why it's true and then you can acquire that knowledge for yourself.

I kind of rambled there a bit but I hope you caan get the gist of it.

[watchinginawe]

I kind of rambled there a bit but I hope you can get the gist of it.

I think I did, and why I put the question mark. What was going through my mind at that point was the "Doctor of the Law" kind of thing. Pharisees for example were described in the New Testament as legalistic to a point of absurdity, so I wondered. It sounds a little like you are saying it is a "work out your own salvation in fear and trembling" kind of thing within norms.

[Fenris]

Pharisees for example were described in the New Testament as legalistic to a point of absurdity

I feel that this is a mischaracterization.

It sounds a little like you are saying it is a "work out your own salvation in fear and trembling" kind of thing within norms.

Judaism is not about salvation. It's about upholding a covenant with God. He gave us responsibilities and we try to do them to the best of our abilities. 

[watchinginawe]

Pharisees for example were described in the New Testament as legalistic to a point of absurdity

I feel that this is a mischaracterization.

I assume you mean that the New Testament mischaracterizes Pharisees. The New Testament, except perhaps for Luke and Acts, were written by Jews. Paul of course testified that he, Saul, was a "Hebrew of the Hebrews", and "after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee". Paul doesn't disparage his life and apparently referred to himself as a Pharisee after his conversion. Paul did count the whole of his experience before conversion as "dung" in the context of how it ultimately stood before God. Of course, Paul used his Roman citizenship and identity and renown as a Pharisee to his advantage depending on his compromised situations (beatings, imprisonment, threat to be assassinated, etc.).

I'll pull out a passage which shows the general way the Gospels characterize the Pharisees:

Matthew 22:15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? 18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? 19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. 20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Of course Jesus was a Jew as well. My point being that none of the 12 disciples were Pharisees and the portrayal of them is just not favorable by the Jewish writers of the Gospels, thus there were a segment of Jews who did not view the Pharisees positively.

Why do you see it as a mischaracterization? I know the general accusations, etc. and don't want to take it there. But I guess Pharisees carried their religion on into the Synagogue era of the Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple, and that seems to be what exists today. So at least from the perspective of contemporary Jews, I would guess Pharisees are seen as kind of founders of the current practice of the religion? And in a positive light, kind of like our "ECF" or Early Church Fathers.

[Fenris]

Why do you see it as a mischaracterization?

So, a few thoughts.

First of all, Jesus himself characterizes the Pharisees in a positive way.

Matthew 23: Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you."


Matthew 5: For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Anecdotally, When Paul describes himself as a "Pharisee of the Pharisees", he isn't doing it to make himself look bad. He's saying it because the Pharisees are looked up to by the people.

Most of Jesus's statements that are not found in the bible itself can be found in the Talmud, which was written by the Pharisees.  For example, almost every verse from the Sermon at the Mount that isn't in the Jewish bible can be found in the Talmud.

The Pharisee writings themselves emphasize kindness and humility and respect for one's fellow man.

Jesus has almost nothing to say about the Sadducees, whose theology and practice and humility were much farther from what he preached than the Pharisees, which suggests that he felt they were so wrong as to not waste his time with them; while the Pharisees were so close to what he was saying that perhaps he felt they were "nearly there".

And finally, we have to contrast Judaism with Christianity. Judaism is about upholding the Sinai covenant. This covenant consists of laws that God gave us to be followed. God loves us so that He gave us these perfect set of rules to live by; can we love Him any less by not trying to keep them as perfectly as is possible?

I know the general accusations, etc. and don't want to take it there. But I guess Pharisees carried their religion on into the Synagogue era of the Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple, and that seems to be what exists today. So at least from the perspective of contemporary Jews, I would guess Pharisees are seen as kind of founders of the current practice of the religion?

Precisely so.

[watchinginawe]

That's a really nice post Fenris. For the Christian, the context of some of the situations you mentioned could be discussed, but I'd rather leave it as a contrasting viewpoint since you did such a good job.

[Fenris]

That's a really nice post Fenris. For the Christian, the context of some of the situations you mentioned could be discussed, but I'd rather leave it as a contrasting viewpoint since you did such a good job.

Thank you! These are the discussions that I'm here for.