The Catholic Church and religious coercion- the smoking gun 2

[ffg]

Hi Mike

Do not think coerciveness was the full question, but the level of it. Another words, does the canon indicate indirectly (smoking gun) that there was much more “forcefullness” than just barring from sacraments.
No, that would be over the top and and avoid at looking at what was and is in doctrine and practice.

But at worst it might be used just as simple us vs them. At best it could humble the CC and learn from "us’’ and help bridge the gap.
Good of you to say. Actually the “sin” carried on past the 1500’s (the P’s were guilty also). Separation of church and state was still far off.

Not sure where that fits in. But yes, there is a difference in believing in something and acting or even teaching something. Not sure your statement is cynical a bit. It should not be about just rocking the boat or not, but about really caring for each individual sheep and what they really believe. Another words, we should care to comply (not rock boat) and comply properly (not rock the boat because we really do believe as we should). Maybe cynical is wrong word for your statement , and might just be my own. Sometimes I have thought the CC allows a lot of “diversity” as long as you do not rock the structure that is the CC. Maybe as P’s we have less structure and hence care more about being equally convinced on all or most things. As you kind of said about “falling”, Protestantism will not fall because of a variant teaching. I think Catholicism is more rigid and must maintain most of their teachings or at least feels it must…Sorry I ramble

Blessings

Hi Ben,

To touch on the last bit first, I think there are some different wave lengths missing each other, notably because your last two cut ups of my last post need each other for context. This was in response to essentially the subject of ‘the power to coerce now vs then’ and the Church’s lower ability (power) now vs. then (Picky’s point). I was countering that both now and then, the Church can’t force the will.

With regard to the first half, I want to make sure I understand - if I’m reading you correctly -

Since this particular ‘rule’ clarification at Trent (canon) speaks of punishments that are more than the barring of the sacraments, you think the smoking gun then is the depth of the rule.

However - more of a bb gun, as you don’t think the CC should fall on a sword, or at least that is not the intent of bringing up this particular ‘rule’ clarification (Canon) that happened at Trent.

Later you touched on why you think P would not fall (variant teaching). I’m guessing as a ‘what if’ of if the CC did fall?

Is this correct?

Thank you,

Mike

 

[bjryman]

I do not know what Baptists believe as a group of if it is individual. Do Baptists:

• believe that grace is imparted by the sacraments and have more than the two of Baptism and Eucharist?
• baptize infants?
• believe that The Blessed Virgin had the stain of original sin?
• believe the Eucharist is actually Christ not a symbol of Christ?
• pray to the saints for intercession?
• hold that intercessory prayers (including to Saints) are helpful to the faithfully departed in purgatory?

Your list can be divided into two categories

1. Issues directly related to our personal Salvation
2. Issues of note passed down from Tradition and Magisterium over 2,000 years

Issue One: Baptists believe in personal salvation that is achieved by accepting they are sinners, that Christ is the Savior, that they repent sin and promise to try and not repeat, and are Baptized in name of Trinity with water. This issue is what has been confirmed by CC teachings after VII regarding there being “elements of salvation in other Christian churches” that practice the above noted activities…and that these individuals may reach heaven.

Issue Two: These are issues not directly related to personal salvation but do allow we Catholics to engage in the full Communion of the Church through both Scripture and Tradition, as interpreted by the Magisterium. Thus, those issues are looked at by other Christian religions in variuos ways.

The Marian doctrine is one that is almost completely embraced by Catholic Tradition. Since there is no depth of Scripture support for IC and Assumption, the Baptists don’t teach it as their doctrine

Baptists don’t believe that a surrogate can replace the person at the age of reason accepting Christ and then being Baptized…thus, they would not practice baptizing babies but also believe that God would not let these precious little ones with no knowldege of their own of Him perish in hell.

Intercessory prayers of course happen when Faithful belonging to any Christian Religion pray for one another. Purgatory is again a Catholic Tradition not taught elsewhere.

Transubstantiation is not a part of Baptist teaching.

Of course, I think you know all that I noted. So this post thread is simply a good example of why Baptists, in general, are not in full Communion with the RCC, but have the elements of Salvation necessary to reach heaven.

My wife has found the Sacraments and other Rituals and Rubrics of the RCC to be the fullfillment of assiting her down her own pathway of holines. Where she still has doubts, she remains hopeful.

 

[Vico]

Your list can be divided into two categories

1. Issues directly related to our personal Salvation
2. Issues of note passed down from Tradition and Magisterium over 2,000 years

Issue One: Baptists believe in personal salvation that is achieved by accepting they are sinners, that Christ is the Savior, that they repent sin and promise to try and not repeat, and are Baptized in name of Trinity with water. This issue is what has been confirmed by CC teachings after VII regarding there being “elements of salvation in other Christian churches” that practice the above noted activities…and that these individuals may reach heaven.

Issue Two: These are issues not directly related to personal salvation but do allow we Catholics to engage in the full Communion of the Church through both Scripture and Tradition, as interpreted by the Magisterium. Thus, those issues are looked at by other Christian religions in variuos ways.

The Marian doctrine is one that is almost completely embraced by Catholic Tradition. Since there is no depth of Scripture support for IC and Assumption, the Baptists don’t teach it as their doctrine

Baptists don’t believe that a surrogate can replace the person at the age of reason accepting Christ and then being Baptized…thus, they would not practice baptizing babies but also believe that God would not let these precious little ones with no knowldege of their own of Him perish in hell.

Intercessory prayers of course happen when Faithful belonging to any Christian Religion pray for one another. Purgatory is again a Catholic Tradition not taught elsewhere.

Transubstantiation is not a part of Baptist teaching.

Of course, I think you know all that I noted. So this post thread is simply a good example of why Baptists, in general, are not in full Communion with the RCC, but have the elements of Salvation necessary to reach heaven.

My wife has found the Sacraments and other Rituals and Rubrics of the RCC to be the fullfillment of assiting her down her own pathway of holines. Where she still has doubts, she remains hopeful.

The risk to ecclesial communities is that they have no apostolic succession nor sacrament of penance so they could not be absolved without perfect contrition.

Dogmas of the Catholic faith are not “Issues of note” for a Catholic but to be assented to with faith, and necessary for salvation for those that know what the Catholic Church teaches about them.

All that seems consistent with the idea that there is no grace received in a sacrament, so then the Baptist Lords Supper symbolic would not be the Catholic Eucharist, and there the Holy Spirit would not be received in infant or adult baptism, therefore no need perception that there is a need to baptize infants.

 

[benhur]

The risk to ecclesial communities is that they have no apostolic succession nor sacrament of penance so they could not be absolved without perfect contrition.

Dogmas of the Catholic faith are not “Issues of note” for a Catholic but to be assented to with faith, and necessary for salvation for those that know what the Catholic Church teaches about them.

All that seems consistent with the idea that there is no grace received in a sacrament, so then the Baptist Lords Supper symbolic would not be the Catholic Eucharist, and there the Holy Spirit would not be received in infant or adult baptism, therefore no need perception that there is a need to baptize infants.

Yes, some gig differences, and I think regeneration, being born again at baptism or not is the big one. Such a fundamental. Yet, all believe in regeneration, receiving of the Holy Spirit, being baptized, receiving communion, that Christ/God absolves sins etc…

 

[Vico]

Yes, some gig differences, and I think regeneration, being born again at baptism or not is the big one. Such a fundamental. Yet, all believe in regeneration, receiving of the Holy Spirit, being baptized, receiving communion, that Christ/God absolves sins etc…

The Baptist belief that I read about is the gifts of the Holy Spirit are only received** once** at baptism, whereas the Catholic teaching is that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are received with sanctifying grace, which we know can be lost with mortal sin, and restored with penance, and increased with other sacraments.

 

[benhur]

The Baptist belief that I read about is the gifts of the Holy Spirit are only received** once** at baptism, whereas the Catholic teaching is that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are received with sanctifying grace, which we know can be lost with mortal sin, and restored with penance, and increased with other sacraments.

As far as baptists yes once baptized but I think they also believe in many in fillings, and walking in the Holy Ghost daily and growing in the Holy Ghost.

 

[Vico]

As far as baptists yes once baptized but I think they also believe in many in fillings, and walking in the Holy Ghost daily and growing in the Holy Ghost.

I read that for Baptists, the “in fillings” require indwelling of the Holy Spirit first/ The indwelling by the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, is the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit per the Baptist. However, the Catholic Church teaching is that this indwelling gained in baptism, is lost with mortal sin.

 

[benhur]

I read that for Baptists, the “in fillings” require indwelling of the Holy Spirit first/ The indwelling by the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, is the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit per the Baptist. However, the Catholic Church teaching is that this indwelling gained in baptism, is lost with mortal sin.

yes good clarification.Not sure if al baptists are OSAS but if not then only the unpardonable sin would seem to be like your mortal sin ,where obviously the Spirit has departed or been rejected/kicked out.

 

[bjryman]

yes good clarification.Not sure if al baptists are OSAS but if not then only the unpardonable sin would seem to be like your mortal sin ,where obviously the Spirit has departed or been rejected/kicked out.

Yes, Savation is a one time thing. It really is with CC as well. The problem arises with “the backsliding faithful”. Our CC history show how many in the early Church waited until their deathbeds to confess, etc. Essentially the CC devised the on going repentence after sinning to fill that gap in the salvation message. And of course the Irish Monks established private confession as an activity in the Church to make the process personal with the priest.

Even Bapists do have a challenge when one asks about serious mortal sin. Let’s take premeditated murder…what is the salvation message then? I actually had a Baptist Church Elder who is also a very highly educated PhD indicate that any believer who truly, with premeditation, committed such crimes, most likely were never saved in the first place.

In other words, their lives did not change when they supposedly accepted Christ as their Savior. Small discressions one can ask for forgiveness directly from Christ. So too can forgiveness be asked for serious mortal sins…but just to have committed such a henious crimes would mean one wasn’t saved.

Very interesting interpretation and consistent with what Salvation is…Born Again, and changed forever.

I assum then, from the discussion I had with this elder, that the person was not saved, had to reconcile all over again with Christ, and without the recommitment, was not going to heaven

 

[Vico]

yes good clarification.Not sure if al baptists are OSAS but if not then only the unpardonable sin would seem to be like your mortal sin ,where obviously the Spirit has departed or been rejected/kicked out.

A baptized person is not saved without sanctifying grace at the time of death, therefore as the Catechism states, mortal sin then brings “eternal death of hell”, i.e. loss of salvation from of baptism.
1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

 

[unstoppable_II]

As some of you may have noticed, I have spent a bit of time, here and there, exploring matters pertaining to religious coercion and the Catholic Church. And now here is a thread in which I will explore the smoking gun. First, here is the smoking gun.
…

I think you are looking at the Church as a governing institution in lieu of a teaching one. Jesus’ last instruction to his apostles was to “go into the world and preach the Gospel, teaching all that I have taught you.” He did not tell them to “go into the world, find out what is going on, and bring it back for incorporation into my Church.” That is what I call “the Gospel in reverse.” Nor did he say to deny the world its conscience and free will. You are confusing teaching with coercion.

 

[bjryman]

I think you are looking at the Church as a governing institution in lieu of a teaching one. Jesus’ last instruction to his apostles was to “go into the world and preach the Gospel, teaching all that I have taught you.” He did not tell them to “go into the world, find out what is going on, and bring it back for incorporation into my Church.” That is what I call “the Gospel in reverse.” Nor did he say to deny the world its conscience and free will. You are confusing teaching with coercion.

You make some good points, but also remember that Christ was the “good Jew” as well, and did not throw away the rubrics, etc completely. Also, the Church that evolved within the Roman Empire definitely became a form of governing institution. Finally, and perhaps most especially, the Jesuit’s were dispatched worldwide and began to incorporate many of the local pagan and other mores into the local Church to help bring more folks, more easily into the body of Christ.

There were and have been many local “things” incorporated into the local church. As a personal example, I am amazed when visiting our parish’s Hispanic Mass. It lasts for two hours and incorporates many rituals that the rest of us in the Parish would never even consider allowing. I am told that these activities are what comprises the Church of South America…especially, though, of Mexico.

 

[unstoppable_II]

… Also, the Church that evolved within the Roman Empire definitely became a form of governing institution. …

That’s true, but I interpreted badnewsbarrett’s comment to be more contemporary.