When To Be A Legalist, And When Not To Be

I was listening to Paul's letter to the Galatians this morning on the way to work. It's a great, short epistle with a lot of meat on the bones.

In Chapter 2, Paul recounts his "calling out" Peter at Antioch over Peter's inconsistency and hypocrisy in not eating with the uncircumcised brethren for fear of being judged by the circumcised. One may recall Peter's initial strong faith in walking to Jesus on the water (Mt 14:29) but which lead to a kind of second-guessing and which causes him to start to sink (14:30). Peter of course recognizes the radical saving power of grace through Christ's passion, death, and resurrection, and yet I think there is perhaps a part of him that still finds it hard to let go of his identity as a member of the Jewish faithful and adherence to the Law. I would wager there is an element of that here in Acts 2: Peter "second-guessing" that he is truly no longer under the Law, but grace. 

Paul, ironically, has no issues preaching the radical grace of Christ and his resurrection. Of course, Paul was a "Hebrew of Hebrews" (Phil 3:5) and a Pharisee, no stranger to the Law and a stringent adherent to it. Just as much as Saul is knocked from his horse and immediately does a one-eighty from persecuting Christians to becoming one, with no second guessing whatsoever (radical obedience), he also immediately and unabashedly throws off the yoke of the Torah (taking on the yoke of the Torah was the mark of a true Pharisee) and takes on the yoke of Christ. For he recognizes that one can not be subject to the one while claiming the other, for "a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ...because by works of the law no one will be justified" (Gal 2:16).

But Peter was almost a bystander in this instance, for Titus (a Gentile), Paul's traveling companion was the one whom "false brothers" (2:4) were trying to convince must be circumcised according to the Law. These Jewish Christians and their false gospel (Gal 1:6) were working counter to Paul's message of radical grace, and Paul has no problem confronting Peter and holding him up as an example of how not to conduct oneself as a Jewish Christian towards the Gentile Christians. 

It may help also to have some background on the Pharisees themselves. The Pharisees were so concerned with not violating the Commandments (a noble sentiment) that they enacted 613 prohibitions drawn from the Mosaic law, and 1,500 additional "fence laws" which served as a kind of outer protective hedge around the aforementioned 613. They were extremely religious, to say the least--again, a noble sentiment--praying the Shemoneh ‘esreh, the eighteen prescribed prayers prayed three times a day. But it was also distinct from the Sadducee sect, as it was geared more towards the faith of ordinary (versus priestly) Jews. The word Pharisee means "set apart, separated." As a Temple-sect of Judaism, after the destruction of the Temple the interpretation of the Law began to crowd out and take on almost more significance than the Law itself. This is why Jesus took such issue with the Pharisees and their crushingly burdensome yoke of interpretation.

It's fashionable to speak of Traditional Catholics today as "Pharisees." But to be honest, all stereotypes have a degree of truth. Nuevo-traditionalists (as opposed to those who with the whole Church simply practiced the traditional faith prior to the reforms of the Second Vatican Council) do often see themselves as "set apart, separated" (from "normie" Catholics and those who attend the Novus Ordo). Some can be suspicious of any kind of expressive or ejaculatory prayer, but are devoted to their missals for reciting prescribed prayers. Many on the extreme end in their religiosity see the New Mass as a kind of defilement, the way the circumcised would not eat with the uncircumcised as we see at Antioch in Gal 2:11-14. 

What does Paul say to Peter there? "If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" Peter's pretense ("hypocrisy") is a kind of play-acting in which he claims the radical grace of God while acting as if he were still under the Law. A kind of "fence law" around grace which prevents one from accepting it without reserve. Ironic, since it was Paul who was the Pharisee of Pharisees, and yet who (rightfully) has thrown himself unabashedly on the law of justification by faith (Gal 2:16) and held nothing back. 

There is also a temptation towards creating our own Catholic "fence laws" around the core of faith, lay interpretations that get weighted disproportionately and zealously defended (and sometimes with a fair amount of rancor). What do I mean? I spoke about this a little in my post Extra-Catholica, but it also comes up over things like praying the Luminous Mysteries, the necessity of veiling at Mass or dress length, and neo-Jansenist tendencies. The self-appointed interpreters of the Law (of the Church) have moved into pride-of-place in certain Catholic circles so much so that "ordinary Catholics" (just like ordinary Jews in the time of the Pharisees) look to them before they look to the heart of the Church.

However, it is not hypocritical for a faithful Catholic to hold fervently as well to legal proscriptions when they fundamentally matter. This may be related to making sure one fasts for at least one hour (if not more) before receiving Holy Communion and should refrain from reception if they have failed to keep this fast. One must also sacramentally confess at least once a year as well (CCC 1457). The Church in her rightful authority requires, for instance, that the species used in the consecration be unleavened (bread) and (wine) free from impurities. If not, a valid consecration did not take place. If one were to not say the name of the individual, and not use the Trinitarian formula ("I baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit" and use a substance other than water, the baptism is likewise not valid. These things do matter. In this sense, legalism is a good for the protection of the integrity of the particular sacraments. No Catholic should feel "bad" for insisting on an assurance of such integrity. 

Jesus admonished the Pharisees not because they were religious, but because their "fences" and interpretations became the focus of their piety; they became as religious pagans washing the outside of the cup while neglecting the inside (Mt 23:25), as the scripture says, "they changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator" (Rom 1:25). 

Just as the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath (Mk 2:27), so too should our hearts be the core, infused with grace and pulsing with faith, while the fences of our piety and our holy religion stand as a bulwark against all that would threaten it. A fence must be solid and thoroughly secured to serve its function. But to the degree we find ourselves overly-busy with sanding, painting, heightening, adorning, barbed-wiring, and leaning on it while our heart languishes within its confines, it may be worth questioning whether one's piety has found its rightful home.