Are obligatory things legalism?

Dec 11, 2010 11:29

I have a question that I'm not antagonistic to but simply curious about ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 19

napoleonofnerds December 11 2010, 21:18:39 UTC
They generally don't bind under sin. There are ways, but it's pretty rare.

That said, look at the original anti-legalist decision by St. James the Just - he still articulates basic requirements which he expects should bind all of the faithful. The general rule is that if the regulations become a serious burden they are abrogated, and it applies both to the fasts and the days of obligation. I think one could maybe say that Eastern fasting rules are legalistic in some circumstances, but I don't think that analysis would hold in any case given how light the most basic level of requirement is and given that each person may decide of their own initiative that a requirement is sufficient burdensome as to warrant dispensation.

Ultimately, the regulation of worship is an important church function that I don't think is legalistic, inasmuch as it is vital to the spiritual health of the people and inasmuch as the rules are abrogated if they become pharisaic.

Reply

karcy December 11 2010, 23:19:43 UTC
Do you mean Eastern Catholic, or just Eastern Christian in general? As an Orthodox, I'd hesitate to call our fasts legalistic.

Reply

napoleonofnerds December 12 2010, 00:50:27 UTC
I am of the firm opinion that they are needlessly and unprofitably harsh for many lay Christians, and I know that there are parts of the world where dispensations are not granted when they should be because if you get a crazy pastor you're SOL. At least, that's what I've understood of them, perhaps the on-the-ground application in most of the world is better than I'm giving it credit for being.

In any case, we do not see the mandated fasts as having particular import with regard to spiritual and moral development, and recognize that harsh fasting rules aren't for everyone, which is why our universally required fasts are quite significantly more mild.

Reply

karcy December 12 2010, 01:13:52 UTC
I hope I'm not overstepping my boundaries, but there is a thread on the Monachos.net forum that is relevant to this - (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?2896-Sexual-relations-during-fasting). Despite the topic of the thread, much of it discusses the spirit of Orthodox praxis, including some of those viewed as harsher practices.

I won't argue that they appear needless to a Catholic, since the East has a slightly different soteriology compared to the West. I only wanted to object to the characterization of the fasts as legalistic.

Reply


limegreenl1ght December 12 2010, 04:43:06 UTC
Well, the fasts are pretty flexible for people with health needs and children and such, so I don't see that as legalism as all ( ... )

Reply


gorski December 12 2010, 06:52:36 UTC
Well... like napoleonofnerds says, it's not usually "do X or you have sinned and must repent and confess ( ... )

Reply


meep December 12 2010, 11:47:20 UTC
Is it legalism to have to go to Mass on Sundays?

Because complaining about having to go to Mass on 6 extra days a year [at most] as legalism is kind of ignoring the even bigger rules we've got.

In any case, just like going to Mass on Sundays, these rules do have a reason. It's not merely "because we said so". So perhaps you'd feel better if you actually found out the reasons for the various items that are bugging you.

Reply

napoleonofnerds December 12 2010, 18:32:53 UTC
It's actually 10 extra days a year at most, but who's counting?

Reply


Leave a comment

Up