A reader writes:
1) A protestant believer is convinced that the Catholic Church is the
Body of Christ and that the "authority" claimed within protestantism
is illegitimate. However, he has vowed submission to the session of
elders at his local congregation, who will not release him from that
vow unless he is transferring to an "acceptable" congregation.
2) A protestant congregation has vowed submission to a presbytery but
the leadership of the congregation becomes convinced that the Catholic
Church is the Body of Christ and that the "authority" claimed within
protestantism is illegitimate.Does the Catholic Church have a position on whether or not such vows
should be honoured? Or how they should be broken or regarded?
The Catholic Church would hold that any vow or promise is null insofar as it requires one to do something immoral.
Those who have recognized the truth of the Catholic faith have a moral obligation to join it. (Indeed, a duty so grave that salvation hinges on it.)
While the timing of joining the Catholic faith may be affected by various considerations (e.g., will it help one’s family come closer to the truth or even join the Church themselves if one waits a bit to give them more time to adjust), the basic obligation to join remains.
Therefore, it would be immoral for those who recognize the truth of the Catholic faith to permanently remain apart from it.
If the promises made to the session or the presbytery would require one to permanently remain apart from the Catholic faith then they require one to do something immoral and so are null. They have no binding force.
If there is a realistic chance that the session would regard the Catholic Church as an "acceptable" church then one might apply to the session for release to the Catholic Church. If there is no realistic chance that the session would do this then one need not apply to them.
That should deal with the first question sufficiently, I hope.
The answer to the second question would be built on similar principles, but I’d need to know more about what exactly the leadership of the congregation is proposing to do before I’d be able to give a concrete answer. If you e-mail me privately on this I may be able to be of more help in this regard.
Hope this helps!
“The Catholic Church would hold that any vow or promise is null insofar as it requires one to do something immoral.”
This seems like an easy way out of a vow to God. Just convince yourself your vow was immoral and you are free(ie “its immoral to stay married to this unpleasant wife”).
In contrast the Bible takes the opposite extreme. The reoccurring theme in the Bible is “be careful what you vow to God because you will have to do it.” For example “Ecclesiastes 5:4-5 When you vow a vow to God, do not delay paying it; for he has no pleasure in fools. Pay what you vow. It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay.”
The most extreme example of this is Jephthah in Judges 11:28-40. He vowed he would sacrifice that of his household that came out his gate first(owning livestock he apparently expected an animal to be the first to greet him). But when it was his daughter he, shockingly, carried out the act. Now the text doesn’t pass judgment on the act (either affirming it or condemning it) but the fervency through which this man held to his vow should tell us something about your protestant flippantly disregarding a vow to God because he has justified it as “immoral” in his own mind. Jephthah would say “be careful when you vow to oh Protestant because you will have to live by it.”
I find it a little ironic that the same people that vilify Martin Luther for renouncing his vows as a monk would be so quick to tell this fellow to renounce his.
So, are you suggesting that once a person makes a vow of obedience that he or she is bound to obey, no matter what sort of wicked order they may be given?
That’s preposterous.
I am saying that biblically speaking there are no easy outs when it comes to vows to God. I did not say what Jepthah did was right or wrong (and neither does the text) or for that matter what Martin Luther did. All I am saying is that if it is humanly possible to keep a vow you are much better off to do so. Jepthah was willing to sacrifice his beloved only offspring (even though the OT is clear that human sacrifice is sin – jer 32:35 and by all other indications in the text he is a man of God).
Fulfill your vow and do not delay (Ecc 5:4-5).
Now my only question would be: was the vow to God (ie the God of Abraham, Isaac Jacob and Jesus) or was it some other God. Many people worship some generic “God” that is not the God of the bible. If the vow was to some other “god” it is certainly not binding.
Re: “This seems like an easy way out….”
Well, there are lots of examples of Christian freedom, or balancing one moral duty against a higher one, that may seem like easy ways out.
You’re allowed to steal food to save your own or another’s life from hunger, for example. So if you were immoral or slithery enough, you could convince yourself every day that you needed to steal food, cash, and diamond rings to save your own life. Of course, a moment’s honest thought would convince you that you really ought to get a job and earn your livelihood instead.
On the other hand, the overscrupulous person will say that even starvation is not enough to authorize stealing a crumb of bread. This sort of thing could lead to allowing yourself or your own children to die, which would pretty well amount to suicide and murder — and would certainly not be God’s idea of doing His will.
So we have to use the judgement and conscience the Holy Spirit gives us, always consulting God and those teachers and authorities that God sends us, to use our freedom as children of God in the right way. Vows are serious stuff; but we’re not obliged to let the Devil lock us up forever with chains of honor, either.
Christian Survey Board:
So if I vowed to do something like be faithful to the Catholic Church and her teachings, or to do a rosary every day, but then I come to the conclusion that the papacy is actually the seat of Satan on earth and being Catholic is all wrong…does this mean that I can’t be saved according to reformed theology since I’ve made a vow (however foolish it may have been) to do and believe these things? And even if I want to completely convert in thought and heart to your theology, I still have to believe the other stuff since I made the vow to God?
I suppose a response you could make might have something to do with your reference to ‘the God of the bible’ aka “God”, instead of God. But if I made that vow to Jesus, would you then argue that I’m actually making the vow to “Jesus” instead of Jesus? (I hope nobody’s lost on my usage of the quotes..if so, look at Mr. CSB’s previous posts)
DJ, The God of the Bible demands that vows made to him are fulfilled. Don’t vow something to God that you are not fully prepared to follow through on – no matter what. That being said, I have repeatedly stated above that I am NOT arguing that Jepthah did the right thing (and the bible doesn’t say so either). My point is that, biblically, vows to God can be a sentence of death for the one that makes them rashly. Breaking a vow to the Pillar of Fire is a dangerous thing.
Was Jepthah right? I don’t know but the moral that the author of the book of Judges appears to be conveying is: “Be careful what you vow.”
Was Martin Luther right to break his vows? I have mixed feelings. I think in certain specific instances (i.e. getting married after vowing lifelong celibacy) he was probably wrong. But I like the author of Judges will stay silent on this matter. It is between him and God now. I will simply tell those around me to be careful what you vow to the God that can throw your body and soul into Hell.
I don’t know what sect of Protestantism has a belief structure which allows its leaders to receive vows of submission.. Are we sure that this is a Trinitarian group teaching on the basis of Sola Scriptura? I would be interested to know what Protestant group this is.
CSB,
I assume that you believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Doesn’t the New Testament prohibition of making any kind of vow or oath at all rule out the necessity of following any previously made ones? Is that not simply another form of idolatry?
JA, I am not endorsing vows of submission, vows of praying the Rosary, vows of sacrificing unknown things that walk through doors or any other type of vow. I am endorsing fulfilling the vow once it is made.
In regards to your second point, you have opened complex issue that diverts from the point of Jimmy Akin’s post and my comments thus far. Let me leave it at this: I know a lot of Protestant theologians, all of whom subscribe to Sola Scriptura and none of them believe that Jesus (Matt 5) or James (James 5) are stating that all vows are prohibited. It should be noted here that the US Justice system was established by Reformed protestants (like myself) and swearing on the Bible is normative in this system. More to the point…..the Presbyterian in Jimmy’s post vowed.
I am actually on the same page as Jesus and St. James here. They are warning against vows; I am warning against vows. But if you make a vow to God…..fulfill it.
CSB –
In your view would the one who took a vow of submission to a session of elders be bound to keep the vow? It sounds like it was a vow to men, rather than to God.
It would seem that if a vow kept you from the true Church that Christ founded it would be a greater sin to keep such a vow than to break it.
CSB,
Those are interesting points, but while it is loosely analogous, I’m not so sure the story of Jephthah applies in a “legallly binding” sense to the one here. You’ve already addressed the problem of whether the vow was was made in oath to the Lord, but there is also another.
Jephthah made his vow rashly. He simply failed to consider the import of his oath; there was no ignorance inolved, only imprudence. In this situation, the opposite is the case. To bring the situation into a more analogous one, consider a man who for whatever reasons makes a vow to God that he will murder another. He later has a Sgt. York-like conversion experience and reconsiders, but by your reasoning what is he to do? The vow has been made, but now the Truth stands before him. Is he to carry out this vow to his own damnation?
It seems to me the more applicable scripture would be Paul’s conversion on the Damascus road. A vow was made not out of some magnanimous imprudence, but out of a well-considered militant zeal, and was carried out as such. But even so, how could Saul remain Saul after being knocked off his horse?
A final thought: your idea that the original vow may be circumvented because it wasn’t to God but to “God” seems to me a distinction without a difference; actually, it is less concrete: one could at any time claim that their old oaths were to a “God” rather than God, and their current state of enlightenment thus nullifies their previous oaths. To be honest, this kind of “God parsing” seems much murkier than the commonsense standard given by Jimmy in his original response. Or perhaps you meant that the actual language of the oath should refere to God as “God of Abraham, etc.”, but then we are back to the weird legalism of it all.
Tim J, I don’t know the details of the vow.
As far as the “true Church” comment that gets into another greater issue outside the scope of this discussion.
Marc,
I have to repeat once more that I am not endorsing Jephtah’s decision or condemning Martin Luther’s.
As far as the murder vow, I think that would certainly fall in the Jephthah category and certainly doesn’t make “Sgt. York” in any better spot. Do you kill and break a vow to the Consuming Fire or do you sin against the Consuming Fire…..I think Sgt. York is going to get burned.
I don’t know what sort of vow’s Paul made to God prior to his conversion but I don’t think Paul would have broken those vows by a simple dismissal, “they are immoral.” He would have done so with repentance, fear and trembling.
Regarding the God distinction, I think it is quite relavant. Western society walks around using the word “God” like we are all talking about the same thing. In biblical times everyone understood you had to define which “god”. Every country had its gods; every culture had its divine endorsements. Israelites couldn’t just say, “I believe in God” to the Philistines. They had to define that God by his actions; “I believe in the God that gave us the land your standing on……get off.”
I don’t think this has changed in today’s world. Deism and the enlightenment have had a dramatic impact on our country. The god that keeps his hands off pretty much all the time, is a different god than the God of Abraham. I could swear on the god of Thomas Jefferson all day……he is impotent, a paper tiger.
JA,
The American Reformation Presbyterian Church (a sliver of a splinter of a fragment of a shard of a denomination founded in 1994 as a split from the Presbyterian Church in America) quite likely does this, and I wouldn’t be surprised if some PCA congregations did so too.
The PCA’s Book of Church Order includes, among other things, a “solemn covenant” by which people are admitted to membership in a congregation. Five questions are asked of the prospective member, of which this is the fifth: “Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?”
http://www.pcanet.org/BCO/BCO56-63.htm
Speaking as a former member of several different PCA congregations over 20+ years (and Catholic since last Easter! Woohoo!), it must be said that (in my experience, anyway) the vast majority of PCA congregations don’t seem to take this vow of submission very seriously (I say that it is a vow since it is described as part of a “solemn covenant”). Some do, however. And it is standard practice in the PCA and in other Reformed denominations to make transfers of membership only to other Reformed congregations.
It is rather rare for a Session to wield this like a cudgel, however. I’m afraid that it’s largely pro forma or a bureaucratic nicety most of the time, because when one moves from one PCA congregation to another, his membership transfer doesn’t release him from the requirement of making a “credible profession of faith” before the Session of the new congregation just as a new believer would do. I can’t think of anything from which the letter of transfer releases the transferee. I also can’t think of anything which one actually “loses” by not transferring to another Reformed denomination.
It should also be noted that there is no mention in the PCA’s membership vows of any sort of duration – in marked contrast to their official marital vows, which include “so long as you both shall live”.
Lastly, given the fact that some folk most certainly find themselves obliged to move to places where no Reformed churches exist, it’s clearly absurd to suppose that such a membership vow must be interpreted so as to prevent one from *ever* joining a non-Reformed denomination.
Sorry for such a long-winded first post 🙂
I believe the confusion comes in the use of the term “immoral” in Mr. Akin’s original post.
In a belief system that is founded on absolute Truth, there are definite answers to what would be immoral in a given situation. It was the Son of God that suggested that the third person of the Blessed Trinity would come to at least the early leaders of that group and lead them into Truth.
In other belief systems what is immoral is largely left up to one’s own interpretation of certain texts. Usually, their arguments include such language as ” I know a lot of Protestant theologians, all of whom subscribe to…..
Thus the crux of the question, whether or not the subject of the vow is binding or is immoral and not binding, provides certain commentators with no guidance. That is how we arrive at a point of view that would, in a far-fetched scenario, have us not honor our covenantal vow with God because we have an earlier vow to God that requires us to abort every child that we conceive.
Amos,
My appeal to Protestant theologians was not intended to be an argument. Reread the post.
Forgive me if I have mislabeled your use of supporting information. I will repost my comment with the appropriate corrections.
I believe the confusion comes in the use of the term “immoral” in Mr. Akin’s original post.
In a belief system that is founded on absolute Truth, there are definite answers to what would be immoral in a given situation. It was the Son of God that suggested that the third person of the Blessed Trinity would come to at least the early leaders of that group and lead them into Truth.
In other belief systems what is immoral is largely left up to one’s own interpretation of certain texts. Usually, their arguments, yet not specifically those of CSB, include such language as ” I know a lot of Protestant theologians, all of whom subscribe to…..
Thus the crux of the question, whether or not the subject of the vow is binding or is immoral and not binding, provides certain commentators with no guidance. That is how we arrive at a point of view that would, in a far-fetched scenario, have us not honor our covenantal vow with God because we have an earlier vow to God that requires us to abort every child that we conceive.
This may run a bit long, so I beg your indulgence.
I agree with Christian Survey Board in his (her? its?) basic premise that one must never ever, ever make a vow to God that one is not fully prepared to satisfy, no matter what.
That just makes good sense!
However, Christian Survey Board, I wonder if you would allow me to propose a hypothetical scenario: Suppose, for the moment, that there is this guy who believes in the Triune God of Abraham and the prophets, but–for whatever reason–hates Jesus and His Salvific Mission. One day, this guy invokes the Holy Name of the God of Abraham and makes a solemn vow to NEVER bend knee or otherwise acknowledge Kingship of Our Holy Savior.
Supposing, then, Christian Survey Board, that this hypothetical guy had a conversion experience, would such a hypothetical guy be better off renouncing his hypothetical solemn vow, or would he be better off holding it to the death? Hypothetically?
You don’t need to answer that, Christian Survey Board, if you don’t want to. It is perfectly reasonable for you to want to avoid hypothetical arguments on a predominantly Catholic commentary area as this.
However, I would posit to you, Christian Survey Board, that the “protestant believer” who has “vowed submission to (a) session of elders” mentioned in Jimmy’s post is analogous to my hypothetical convert.
Both the “protestant believer” of Jimmy’s post and the hypothetical guy in my (hopefully-not-too-blasphemous) example made vows regarding their general behavior according to what they believed at the time of the vow. Later, they came to repent of what they believed and aspired to conform their behaviors in accordance to their new beliefs.
NOTE, Christian Survey Board, that the real guy and the hypothetical guy had to change THEIR BELIEFS in what God wanted. Jephthah underwent NO CHANGE in his BELIEFS regarding what God wanted. He simply found the fulfillment of his vow surprisingly hard when payment time came due.
Christian Survey Board says, “He (Jephthah) vowed he would sacrifice that of his household that came out his gate first(owning livestock he apparently expected an animal to be the first to greet him).” However, in my translation (RSV), it says, “And Jeph’thah made a vow to the LORD . . . ‘whosoever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Am’monites shall be the LORD’s, and I will offer him up for a burnt offering.'”
Your interpretation, Christian Survey Board, is apparantly that Jephthah made the vow expecting that the first thing to greet him after his victory over the Am’monites would be a cow or something. He was surprised by the fact that the first thing to issue from his house was HUMAN, and moreover, was his only-born daughter. My reading of Scripture tells me, however, that Jephthah was FULLY EXPECTING the first to congratulate his victory WOULD BE HUMAN–not a cow–and was only disappointed that the human he vowed to sacrifice turned out to be his only child.
Jephthah was discouraged (but not undeterred) NOT because he had moral reservations against human sacrifice, but because he, humanly, did not want to give up his only child.
Christian Survey Board is correct to say that vows to God can not be easily broken. And Christian Survey Board is further correct in saying that for this reason vows to God should not be easily made. We are human, after all, subject to the viscissitudes of the passage of time. We make vows in order to create a sense of permanence in our lives, and once we start breaking those vows, our sense of permanence starts to break with them.
The “protestant believer” that Jimmy talks about in his post will forever carry with him the vow he once made, whether he fulfills it to the letter or not.
However, Jimmy’s “protestant believer” made his vow with the intention of following Christ to the best of his ability. At the time this “protestant believer” made the vow, his clearest path to following Christ was a vow to a session of elders at his local congregation. Now, the “protestant believer” sees admission into the Roman Catholic Church as the suerest way to follow Christ.
Ergo, I would then posit to you, Christian Survey Board, that such a “protestant believer” would be, in actuality, adhering to the truth of his vow by joining the Roman Catholic Church and forsaking the session of elders whose protestantism he has rejected.
CSB-
I’m not arguing here whether the Catholic church is the true Church. That is why I phrased my question as an “if/then”…
I think it is still a valid question.
Oddly, I was a Presbyterian for a few years on my way to the Catholic church. I was even “ordained” an elder, so I’m sure that I took a similar vow of submission to the session.
Christian Survey Board:
In my post, I tried to set up a situation, one that might already exist (and for many people, does already exist.)
The setup: say somebody makes a bad vow, then they realize that the vow is not so good (in that, “Oh no! I’m going to hell now” sort of way.)
Then that person decides they don’t want to go to hell.
Is it better to sin and break the vow (especially since God forgives sins) or is it better to keep the vow and learn how to do the backstroke for that eternal lake of fire that person is going to be spending eternity in?
Yes, I’m aware they should have not taken that vow. This is not lost on me. Trust me, I get it. I’m married to a very legalistic Protestant gal. I know more than most about not making vows you can’t keep. I knew that when I made my original post. Rule 1: no sloppy vow making, Rule 2: everything else. Most of the people responding on this list understand that as well, that’s not why they’re all posting what they’re posting.
Yes, your point was only, ‘keep your vows’ in your original post, but you must remember that you were on the offensive in your post. So now the comunity at large is going to defend their side, which means delving into how to handle various situations that do already exist today.
Not coincidentally, I’m sure, the passage in question (Judges 11, 29-39) here was the first reading for daily Mass yesterday!
“My reading of Scripture tells me, however, that Jephthah was FULLY EXPECTING the first to congratulate his victory WOULD BE HUMAN–not a cow–and was only disappointed that the human he vowed to sacrifice turned out to be his only child.”
I agree, Ry – this is what I got when I read the passage last night.
Also, I was struck with how Jephthah’s daughter willingly went to sacrifice, after requesting a period to mourn her virginity in the mountains. She says: “And she said to him, ‘My father, if you have opened your mouth to the LORD, do to me according to what has gone forth from your mouth, now that the LORD has avenged you on your enemies, on the Ammonites.'” Keeping in mind that the Net Testament is concealed in the Old & the Old Testament is revealed in the New . . . Her willingness to be sacrificed shows a deep trust in God – a very Christ-like thing to do! Could it not be said that this passage is an Old Testament type of what is to come in the New? Perhaps Jephthah’s vow was rash & not pleasing to God. If so, his daughter’s willingness to die for his rashness is much like Christ’s willingness to die for all men, even those Jews who condemned him for curing the sick & picking wheat on the Sabbath. Their misuse of the Law of God is akin to Jephthah’s, isn’t it? Wouldn’t it have been a better thing for Jephthah to have sacrificed a specifically chosen, choice animal upon his victorious return rather than have made such a vow?
Hey, I’m no scholar. Please feel free to correct as necessary.
CSB,
I think that I understand the core of your difficulty with Jimmy’s advice.
“This seems like an easy way out of a vow to God. Just convince yourself your vow was immoral and you are free(ie ‘its immoral to stay married to this unpleasant wife’).”
The key words there are “convince yourself.” The Church gives very specific guidelines and often more specific examples win determining what actions (and thus vows to engage in such actions) are immoral. The Church cannot teach that to divorce an “unpleasant wife” is a moral obligation, however many individuals reading scripture and invoking the Holy Spirit may come to that conclusion.
A vow to commit some evil is not a valid vow, whether you make it in the name of God or not.
The case of Luther is not exactly the same as the case of the Protestant vowing submission to the “presbytery.” We believe that Luther’s rejection of his religious vows was wrong because religious life is an objectively good thing (whether Luther was truly called to it is another issue) and he rejected it because he believed that religious life was objectively bad. According to my understanding, Luther’s rash vow made in fear of his life “God, I’ll be a monk!!” would not likely be taken as binding today. Luther, however, made formal and solemn vows following this experience, which added to his culpability.
The point is that while the issue of the “true Church” is beyond this particular issue, it has essential bearings upon it.
Out of respect for Jimmy’s blog (I am sure he had no intention of starting a debate forum based on his short little post), I am going to make this my last comment here. Feel free to come to my blog to discuss further, but I think we have basically come full circle.
I am going allow my argument to stand or fall its own merits without any further note. But I would like to make this defense of Jepthah’s intent behind his vow (although it is certainly not central to my arguments made above). Some in this discussion have suggested that Jepthah expected to kill a human with his vow. I disagree.
The word that the author of Judges uses is the Hebrew word ‘asher’ (sorry I can’t use a Hebrew font). This word can be translated ‘whatever’ or ‘whoever’. And based on what we know about Jewish condemnations of human sacrifice and Jepthah’s overall commitment to God, it is unlikely (and unwarranted based on the text) that the author of Judges intended to portray him as one who vowed to murder. Of the seven English translations I looked at, six (including Douay-Rheims) translated this as “Whatever”.
Further, the text states that Jepthah had no other children (Jdgs 11:34). It is likely that there were significantly more animals than people on his estate. Therefore I think it is safe to assume Jepthah expected an animal.
This defense of his intent being offered, let me close by saying it was a rash and reckless vow that had deadly consequences.
I think that it is worthwhile to note that in the case of any vow, promise, oath, covenant or contract, that there are always at least TWO parties involved. In the casees at hand, the second party is God. And God is free to accept or reject any vow, promise, oath, covenant or contract proposed to Him.
Furthermore, God is good, and would not accept the terms of a contract which required a party to commit an objective evil.
ERGO: I would posit that if one, in a state of ignorance, offered a vow to God with the requirements being that, on fulfillment of the terms of the vow, the human person proposing the vow would commit an objectively evil action–if THIS were the case–then we can assume that God would reject the terms of the vow and not require the evil action to take place.
Therefore, once the human making the vow had realized the objective evil of what he had vowed to do, this human would realize, concurrantly, that God did not want him to do the thing he had vowed to do, which would effectively release such human from carrying out whatever it was he supposed himself bound to do.
Fred, if the BCO simply says “Church”, then whatever you best perceive as being The Church would be that to which you must render submission and obedience. . .
BTW, what’s the story about the American Reformation Presbyterian Church? Why did they split? Was that right after a General Assembly? I was at CTS at the time, and I don’t recall hearing about it.
Btw, I looked into it and it seems that the people of Israel were, in fact, allowed to renege on foolish vows, as long as they paid the penalty to do so. If you didn’t pay the penalty, then yes, God would take it out of you another way. But really, all you usually had to do was go to God and the priests and make it right. (For stuff, the usual ransom was 1 and 1/5 of its value, if I read Leviticus 27 right.) The Old Testament is plenty stern, but it’s not as stern as all that. Nobody knows better than God that we humans are often kinda stupid.
Similarly, Catholic priests, bishops, etc. have the power to bind and loose, and if you were really worried about it, you could ask one of them if you could be released from an imprudent vow of this nature. You might have to do penance if it was a stupid vow, or a good vow that it was simply beyond you to keep. But seeing as getting out of this vow would help you grow spiritually, not hold you back, I don’t think they’d assign anything except maybe to pray for your previous congregation.
Especially since the pain of being treated so badly by the congregation, trying to make you stay in their group against your will, would certainly be more than enough penalty in itself.
I Googled around some more and also found Numbers 30, which specifically deals with release and annulment of vows!
An Orthodox Jewish teaching on the release of vows:
http://www.ou.org/torah/ti/5763/matotmasei63.htm
“…the law of hatarat nedarim, release from vows. Although at first glance it seems that the only individuals authorized to nullify vows are a father or a husband, the Torah Sheb’al Peh (Oral Tradition) teaches that a scholar has a similar authority. An expert in the laws of vows – or, three laymen who are familiar with these laws – can, under certain conditions, release anyone from his vows or oaths. It is customary to perform hatarat nedarim on the eve of Rosh Hashana.
“In fact, the authority of the scholar seems to be even greater than that of a father or husband. Whereas the hafarah of the father or husband annuls the vow from that moment on, the hatarah of the scholar nullifies the vows from its inception, as if it had never been made (Rabbeinu Nissim, c. 1310-1375, commentary to Nedarim 77b). Still, the scholar may not use the method of hafarah, but only hatarah…
“When a scholar releases a vow, he uses one of two approaches:
“1. Charatah – ‘regret’ – The one who vowed no longer has the same feelings that originally prompted the vow, and the scholar determines that he wishes he had never vowed in the first place.
“2. Petach – ‘an opening’ – The scholars ask: ‘If you had realized all the consequences of your vow, would you have vowed?’ and he says he would not have done so…
“Rabbi Soloveitchik further connects these two approaches to two different avenues to repentance. At times, a person is moved to repentance through ‘regret’: he is repulsed and aggrieved by the memory of his sins…At other times, repentance is motivated by a clearer understanding of the results of continued sin….”
Fortunately I did not vow to remain silent in here. But Maureen actually raised a new question that I thought was important. Does Numbers 30 release one from vows or does it allow scholars to release one from vows?
I think the answer must be ‘no’. The passage sheds more light on the Hebrew view of women’s position in society. Because of the patristic nature of thier society, it was viewed as grossly unfair for someone to obtain a vow from a woman without approval from the man in her life (either the father or husband depending on her marital status).
You may note from the passage that there is no out whatsoever for the man. The only reason the woman is allowed out of the vow is because her husband gets veto rights.
Unless you are arguing that the presbyterian in Jimmy’s post was a woman and that we should return to such a patriarical structure of society, I don’t think it applies to our discussion.
Immoral vows (determined via chatechism, I’m assuming we’re Catholic or hold Catholic beliefs) are ment to be broken. Easy. Same goes for promises, ‘debts’ (not in money), favors, etc.
Unless its an Unbreakable Vow. 😉
Well, CSB, if you won’t trust Christian interpretation of scripture or tradition, Jewish interpretation of scripture or tradition, logic, or ordinary ethics, you clearly aren’t someone whom anyone can argue with. I will spare you an examination of the Old English literature on foolish vows, and leave you alone.
I’m distressed that you’re so determined to put burdens on other people and yourself that neither they nor you are meant to bear, despite the fact that God indeed provides ways to get out from under them.
I’ll pray that God softens your heart.
Maureen,
I trust many Christian’s interpretation of scripture. I find no use in following non trinitarian’s thought (Jewish or otherwise).
Regarding tradition, I am certainly a product of mine and therefore I trust it implicitly all the time. However I do beleive it is possible to be dissuaded from following a tradition if the evidence for doing so is strong and clear enough.
I did not intend to ‘argue’ as you state above but discuss (maybe debate). I put no burden’s on anyone but simply note (as Jesus and James do in the NT) that a vow probably should not be made at all. When it is, it better be followed. I challange you to find a single passage in the Bible where the breaking of a vow to God is viewed as good (regardless of the morality of the vow in the first place).
But thank you for praying for me. I do need it.
CSB,
I don’t think that you mean to argue at all, and I am glad that you state your case with as much cordiality that you do.
“I challange you to find a single passage in the Bible where the breaking of a vow to God is viewed as good (regardless of the morality of the vow in the first place).”
The problem here is that you are working under the premise of sola scriptura. We are working under the premise that the Church is the ulitmate arbiter with the power to bind and loose. The Chair of Peter has replaced the Chair of Moses and God has instructed us on this issue as definitively and as certainly as He did through Moses in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. Until we agree on the essentials of the nature of the Church and Scripture, we can’t really argue (or discuss :)) this issue on the same grounds.