The Catholic Church and religious coercion- the smoking gun 2

[Duane1966]

Hi Duane,
I am mostly referring to a book on the Paris cathedral of Notre Dame. Don’t have it with me at present. Basically it talked of the previous church structures that she was built upon and how similar it was to other churches still existing today (that many were built upon older ones,sometimes twice over). The older ones had two distinct sections, one for catechumen and one for the “initiated”. The newer ones no longer had the distinction of two sections due to infant baptism being more prevalent and decline of catechumen class…x

Part III

Shows before Constantine infant baptism in wide use. The whole article is interesting.

For this reason, the early Christians were adamant about baptizing children right away. Listen towhat St. Cyprian of Carthage said to Fiduson this subject back around 253 A.D.:But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. For as the Lord says in His Gospel,“The Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them,”[Luke 4:56]*as far as we Can, We must strive that, if possible, no soul be lost.Notice the two camps: one view says that infants should be baptized right away, while the other says that we shouldn’t baptize infants… until they’re eight days old, to better signify that Baptism is the new circumcision. Both of these positions are firmly pro-infant baptism. And the first view wins out because they realize that baptism saves, so we shouldn’t take any chances with the souls of our children. It’s solid logic that we could use more of.
Not saying there were no infant baptisms at any time.Only saying church construction does tell a story (that of later widespread infant baptism and decline of earlier,larger, “catechumen”, not to mention the growth and deep entrenchment of Christianity into the culture as indicated by her superlative cathedrals) . I am also not sure if they mean that to be around 7-8 th centuries.Certainly before the existing Notre Dame was built in 12th century.

 

[Duane1966]

Hi Duane,
I am mostly referring to a book on the Paris cathedral of Notre Dame. Don’t have it with me at present. Basically it talked of the previous church structures that she was built upon and how similar it was to other churches still existing today (that many were built upon older ones,sometimes twice over). The older ones had two distinct sections, one for catechumen and one for the “initiated”. The newer ones no longer had the distinction of two sections due to infant baptism being more prevalent and decline of catechumen class…

Not saying there were no infant baptisms at any time.Only saying church construction does tell a story (that of later widespread infant baptism and decline of earlier,larger, “catechumen”, not to mention the growth and deep entrenchment of Christianity into the culture as indicated by her superlative cathedrals) . I am also not sure if they mean that to be around 7-8 th centuries.Certainly before the existing Notre Dame was built in 12th century.

Infant baptism was probably norm from beginning.

Part III

For this reason, the early Christians were adamant about baptizing children right away. Listen towhat St. Cyprian of Carthage said to Fiduson this subject back around 253 A.D.:But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. For as the Lord says in His Gospel,“The Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them,”[Luke 4:56]*as far as we Can, We must strive that, if possible, no soul be lost.Notice the two camps: one view says that infants should be baptized right away, while the other says that we shouldn’t baptize infants… until they’re eight days old, to better signify that Baptism is the new circumcision. Both of these positions are firmly pro-infant baptism. And the first view wins out because they realize that baptism saves, so we shouldn’t take any chances with the souls of our children. It’s solid logic that we could use more of.

 

[Duane1966]

Of course we are “drawn” by the Father to the Son . Of course that is grace. I think we label things and discern the beginnings of new life differently still.Only new life can have a proper Godly desire. And that gladly.Before that we are like wild stallions (who by the way follow and need a leader horse) and God chases us down from behind and lasssos us as we fight and run in the opposite direction, not willing to conform to this new leader. The stallion must be broken first before he will allow you to bridle him.I am saying that when the horse is broken and he has made the decision to follow this new leader, he has a new heart, will, and life.Then the horse allows the bridle, the acting out of this new life, a symbol if you will of that new heart.To me I see CC definition as stating this new life is not their until the bridling. It is like you are taking theevidenceof new life and calling itcausitiveof that new life.Quote:One need not divide the process into before and after, it is a process of divinization/theosis.But we all do this, and it can be succinct as defining our first birth at conception.Quote:How so?“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;” TitusBeauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some see water baptism as the washing others see it as an inner Holy Spirit washing before any physical water. I think Paul is simply saying Christ saves you mercifully and not by a righteous work of water baptism.(though it is evidence of a merciful work).

The problem with your analogy is, we are not horses. The horse once broken, will stay broken. It’s freewill is gone. Not so with humans, freewill remains. Baptism not only washes away sins but imparts grace to help us in our new life. Without Baptism, we are truly not part of the body yet.

Part IV

We see this alsoin Acts 22:16. There, St. Paul recounts how Ananias told him “And now why do you wait?Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” Paul already believed at this point, and his sight was already restored (Acts 22:13), yet he still needed to have his sins forgiven. And those sins were washed away in Baptism. This wasn’t just some symbol of a past event: Baptism actuallydidsomething.This pattern is found throughout Scripture, including in the Old Testament. St. Peter noted, in the passage we looked at above, that Noah’s Ark prefigured baptism with its theme of salvation through water. St. Paul makes the same point about the Israelites passing through the Red Sea under the Cloud of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 10:1-4). Other examples abound, like the healing of Naaman the Syrian in 2 Kings 5. Christ signifies this in His miracles, restoring sight through washing (John 9:11). Even the symbolism of Baptism points to this: water is associated with cleansing to signify the spiritual signifying that Baptism brings about.Here’s how St. Paul describes God’s action in Baptism (Ephesians 5:25-27):Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her,having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.Notice how Paul’s description contrasts with GotQuestion’s. It’s not us declaring ourselves clean for Jesus; it’s not even us cleaning ourselves for Jesus. Instead,Baptism is Jesus cleaning us. Or look at 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, in which Paul says that although some of his readers were hell-bound unrighteous,“you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”So not only is Baptism not something that we do for God, it’s not even something that wecoulddo for God.Hemust cleanseus. Or as Paul says in Titus 3:4-7,*But when the kindness and generous love of God our Savior appeared,*not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of His Mercy,He saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He richly poured out on us through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs in hope of eternal lifeIn reducing Baptism to a symbol, and one that only adults who view themselves as saved Christians can perform, these Protestants have ironically reduced Baptism into a goodwork for us to perform for God, rather than the gratuitous work of God in wiping away our sins and bringing about our salvation.

 

[joe371]

benhur

Is it ? It can be a fine line. The OT Jews trusted in God given ordinances also. Bottom line is in Christ alone. Well they do believe, in Christ’s ritual. The think they believe, and obey properly.

Every Catholic Christian agrees with you. It’s Jesus Christ alone Who draws people closer to Him via the sacraments, (which of course impart grace), within His Mystical Body, the Church, of which He is the Head and Savior:: *“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God”. *Jesus and the sacraments are not two mutually exclusive sources of grace, but rather one and the same - correct?

 

[joe371]

Hi Duane,
I am mostly referring to a book on the Paris cathedral of Notre Dame. Don’t have it with me at present. Basically it talked of the previous church structures that she was built upon and how similar it was to other churches still existing today (that many were built upon older ones,sometimes twice over). The older ones had two distinct sections, one for catechumen and one for the “initiated”. The newer ones no longer had the distinction of two sections due to infant baptism being more prevalent and decline of catechumen class…

Not saying there were no infant baptisms at any time.Only saying church construction does tell a story (that of later widespread infant baptism and decline of earlier,larger, “catechumen”, not to mention the growth and deep entrenchment of Christianity into the culture as indicated by her superlative cathedrals) . I am also not sure if they mean that to be around 7-8 th centuries.Certainly before the existing Notre Dame was built in 12th century.

That is interesting, and of course I know you are not suggesting that infant baptism did not exist. After all Jesus did say: “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.”

And below we see Jesus urging the people to let the children come to him for they belong to the kingdom of heaven.

“People were also bringing babies to Jesus for him to place his hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”

I am a strong believer, however, that Jesus can work outside the confines of this particular sacrament, as was the case with all those people that existed before the institution of Baptism, as well as the thief on the cross who is heaven, as we speak.

 

[Contarini]

Don’t disagree about how it would have felt to me living in the time and culture that I do. But I think the OP is trying to say gotcha your doctrinal positions change–I think the doctrinal position on the validity of infant baptism remains unchanged doesn’t it? What’s changed is our approach regarding those who walk away and I don’t think that is the gotcha the OP was hoping for. I don’t know I’d say I’d recognize the disciplinary aspect of the canon as a true teaching of Christ but rather as an authority the Church has over me as a member of the Church. The Church today compels me, as a member who attempts to be faithful, to do certain things–i.e. fast on certain days or not to eat meat on Fridays during Lent–that I don’t believe I’d refer to a true teachings of Christ but rather as things the Church has the authority to bind me to under pain of penalty–luckily today the penalty here on earth is not so severe–one might even say nonexistent–of course–that might make my lapses seem less serious, my sin less real, and the consequences of my actions–which could be condemning me to hell–less real or as if there really are no consequences. Does this make me a heretic?

The peace of Christ,
Mark

The canon appears to be saying that it is a doctrinal error to say that those who walk away from the faith shouldn’t face penalties other than exclusion from the sacraments.

The language “if anyone says. . . . let him be anathema” is the language of doctrinal condemnation, not simply the language of disciplinary regulation.

Edwin

 

[benhur]

The problem with your analogy is, we are not horses. The horse once broken, will stay broken. It’s freewill is gone.

I carefully said horses have a built in need or understanding of having a “head horse” and that the horse has to switch “allegiance”" from a a lead horse to a human. The horse’s will does not die but switches. I am no expert and would think if the horse were put back in the “wild” he would join another herd with another lead horse.

Paul already believed at this point,

Not so sure about that, unless you are saying an unregenerate man can believe with saving faith.

 

[PRmerger]

Not so sure about that, unless you are saying an unregenerate man can believe with saving faith.

Well, Cornelius clearly believed with saving faith but was unregenerate, no?

 

[Duane1966]

Not so sure about that, unless you are saying an unregenerate man can believe with saving faith.

I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’d8I replied, ‘Who are you, sir?’ And he said to me, ‘I am Jesus the Nazorean whom you are persecuting.’e9My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me.f10I asked, ‘What shall I do, sir?’ The Lord answered me, ‘Get up and go into Damascus, and there you will be told about everything appointed for you to do.’g11Since I could see nothing because of the brightness of that light, I was led by hand by my companions and entered Damascus.h12i*“A certain Ananias, a devout observer of the law, and highly spoken of by all the Jews who lived there,13came to me and stood there and said, ‘Saul, my brother, regain your sight.’ And at that very moment I regained my sight and saw him.14Then he said, ‘The God of our ancestors designated you to know his will, to see the Righteous One, and to hear the sound of his voice;15for you will be his witness**before all to what you have seen and heard.16Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon his name.’

So are you saying you, personally, could be blinded, hear a voice telling you to stop, you then call Him “Lord”, do what the voice tells you to do, and still not believe? And yet it still was not enough to save St. Paul. He still HAD to be baptized, or he could not have done the WORKS (yes I said works) the Lord had planned for him.

You can believe, but without baptism, you are officially not a member. Just like many people can illegally live in the USA all their lives, but without taking that oath of citizenship, they are not really members.

By the way, Jesus makes it clear that we can have tons of faith and still be rejected. From Mt. 7:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven,*but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.n22Many will say to me on that day,o‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’p23Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you.**Depart from me, you evildoers.’

Ben, are you saying that a person can believe, refuse to be baptized, and still be saved?

 

[Liquid47]

The canon referred to in the OP is unquestionably correct. Historically, the Catholic Church has believed that she has the power to coerce the faithful for the salvation of their souls. Since Vatican II, there has been much debate as to whether we have stopped coercing to the detriment of society, and the detriment of souls.

I can think of two examples of coercion from the saints:

St. John the Evangelist ran out of a public bathhouse in anger because there Cerenthus was inside simply washing himself. “Let us flee, lest the bath fall in while Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is there.” The beloved of Our Lord socially stigmatizing a heretic? Ouch.

We’ve also got the famous legend of St. Nicholas punching Arius at the Council of Nicaea. Now this one is a bit on those nose, but I think it got the point across.

There are certainly more examples of non-Sacramental coercion throughout history, but I’m not trying to open the water gates for Catholic Christians to start slinging mud in heretical or even heterodox eyes. The prism of presentism is certainly… coercing the faithful into believing that their faith is sunshine and roses with a side of milk toast. It’s not.

The question is how coercion should be applied. Unwilling to attend events with your practising gay Christian friend, for example, would be a form of coercion that is non-Sacramental. I don’t do this myself, and the amount of times my gay friends think I’m accepting of their lifestyles befuddles me. What’s worse is that they’re getting deeper and deeper into depravity. Therefore, I can totally see how coercion tactics play a part in the life of the Church faithful.

Not everything needs to be hot coals underneath feet guys. Maybe some sinful Catholic politicians would do well with a public declaration of sin around their neck in front of a cathedral or something, though

 

[Easter_Joey]

Is the canon saying that those leaving the faith should always, as in for every period of history in the Christian era, have penalties applied? Or is the canon saying that those leaving the faith (referring to the current historical situation @ Trent) should be punished, not speaking for future eras?

If any one saith, that those who have been thus baptized when children, are, when they have grown up, to be asked whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their names when they were baptized; and that, in case they answer that they will not, they are to be left to their own will; and are not to be compelled meanwhile to a Christian life by any other penalty, save that they be excluded from the participation of the Eucharist, and of the other sacraments, until they repent; let him be anathema.

Regardless I still stand by a statement I think I made earlier about those leaving the faith shouldn’t have a prominent role in, say, faith formation, which would be an example of a nonsacramental penalty. Or in the temporal realm having those leave the faith try to change society in ways detrimental to the common good.

 

[AbideWithMe]

I carefully said horses have a built in need or understanding of having a “head horse” and that the horse has to switch “allegiance”" from a a lead horse to a human. The horse’s will does not die but switches. I am no expert and would think if the horse were put back in the “wild” he would join another herd with another lead horse.
Not so sure about that, unless you are saying an unregenerate man can believe with saving faith.

I’m a lifelong horsewoman, so I’ll agree about that more or less. Horses are social animals, like humans, so, a feral horse, once he chooses to accept a human leader, most certainly has free will with which he continues to choose to trust (or not trust) a person. Returned to a feral state, the horse would seek out other horses to join.

 

[benhur]

Well, Cornelius clearly believed with saving faith but was unregenerate, no?

Hi PR,
Thanks for the afternoon laugh, for as I recall we have been over this a million times, if you please excuse my hyperbole.

 

[benhur]

I’m a lifelong horsewoman, so I’ll agree about that more or less. Horses are social animals, like humans, so, a feral horse, once he chooses to accept a human leader, most certainly has free will with which he continues to choose to trust (or not trust) a person. Returned to a feral state, the horse would seek out other horses to join.

Hi Abider,

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut , even good backup, for I am not a “horseman” but “have heard it said”.

 

[Contarini]

Is the canon saying that those leaving the faith should always, as in for every period of history in the Christian era, have penalties applied? Or is the canon saying that those leaving the faith (referring to the current historical situation @ Trent) should be punished, not speaking for future eras?

I think it’s reasonable to say that it’s defending the legitimacy of penalties, not their necessity. And that’s a distinction I think the OP failed to make.

Regardless I still stand by a statement I think I made earlier about those leaving the faith shouldn’t have a prominent role in, say, faith formation, which would be an example of a nonsacramental penalty. Or in the temporal realm having those leave the faith try to change society in ways detrimental to the common good.

The problem with your examples is that it’s not clear how they would “compel people to a Christian life.” It seems that something more punitive is intended.

I’m quite willing to grant that your examples might satisfy the demands of the canon in a strictly legal sense. But I think it’s clear, historically, that the Council Fathers had something much harsher in mind.

The second example is particularly vague–what would it mean and how would it “compel” people? If you make it more concrete by saying, for instance, that heretics and apostates may/should be excluded from certain public offices or denied certain civil rights, then I think you’re getting closer to a reasonable interpretation of the canon. I still think that the Council Fathers pretty clearly were defending the existing regime of coercion, up to and including capital punishment, but deprivation of the right to participate fully in civil society would certainly be on the milder end of the kind of thing they had in mind.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PR,
Thanks for the afternoon laugh, for as I recall we have been over this a million times, if you please excuse my hyperbole.

It is a trenchant point and one that always needs to be mentioned whenever someone offers the idea that the regenerate cannot please God.

Clearly, Cornelius refutes that claim.

 

[benhur]

That is interesting, and of course I know you are not suggesting that infant baptism did not exist. After all Jesus did say: “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.”

And below we see Jesus urging the people to let the children come to him for they belong to the kingdom of heaven.

“People were also bringing babies to Jesus for him to place his hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”

I am a strong believer, however, that Jesus can work outside the confines of this particular sacrament, as was the case with all those people that existed before the institution of Baptism, as well as the thief on the cross who is heaven, as we speak.

Hi Joe,
Jesus also said John baptized with water but we now are baptized in the Holy Ghost.

Thank you for saying He can work outside confines of sacrament. I will also say there is strong argument for working within water baptism though I disagree with dogmatizing it. But in Acts it was almost a simultaneous act making it seem as effectual, and there is something to “calling out to the name of the Lord” in baptism, as in confessing with your mouth to make your salvation sure.

I think previously it has been discussed that not all think "water " is baptism in your quote on Nicodemus discourse.

 

[benhur]

It is a trenchant point and one that always needs to be mentioned whenever someone offers the idea that the regenerate cannot please God.

Clearly, Cornelius refutes that claim.

I think you meant unregenerate? I was not talking about pleasing God but pleasing Him specifically with saving faith, which only a regenerate heart can have.

 

[benhur]

If you make it more concrete by saying, for instance, that heretics and apostates may/should be excluded from certain public offices or denied certain civil rights, then I think you’re getting closer to a reasonable interpretation of the canon.

As a side note, I have heard that some of our early states constitutions required the Christian faith for its office holders, New York being one of them.

 

[Telstar]

Is the canon saying that those leaving the faith should always, as in for every period of history in the Christian era, have penalties applied? Or is the canon saying that those leaving the faith (referring to the current historical situation @ Trent) should be punished, not speaking for future eras?

If any one saith, that those who have been thus baptized when children, are, when they have grown up, to be asked whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their names when they were baptized; and that, in case they answer that they will not, they are to be left to their own will; and are not to be compelled meanwhile to a Christian life by any other penalty, save that they be excluded from the participation of the Eucharist, and of the other sacraments, until they repent; let him be anathema.

Regardless I still stand by a statement I think I made earlier about those leaving the faith shouldn’t have a prominent role in, say, faith formation, which would be an example of a nonsacramental penalty. Or in the temporal realm having those leave the faith try to change society in ways detrimental to the common good.

The Church (via the Council) is anathematizing the entire statement. To me, it means that the Church (via the Council) is saying it’s wrong to even ask anyone to retake their Baptismal vows when they grow up (because it would cast doubts on Catholic Baptism). So logic tells me, that there are no penalties involved, whatsoever. Those penalties (suggested by those who want people to retake their vows) were to be applied if someone refused to retake their vows. But, you can’t really punish someone for refusing to do something you never asked them to do, can you? Then, why do people keep insisting that the Church might want to punish them, anyway?