The Catholic Church and religious coercion- the smoking gun 2

[Picky_Picky]

Thank you. What I’m trying to find out is this: what is it, exactly, that non-Catholics here are trying to extrapolate from the writings of Thomas Pink?

I’d not read any of Pink’s writings until seeing this thread yesterday. But I’ve read though a couple of his writings since then, and have to wonder why a non-Catholic would see his views as being consistent with non-Catholic views, because I’m not really seeing it.

I really don’t think this is a Catholic v non-Catholic thing. There is a difference of opinion in this thread. One side, including Catholic as well as non-Catholic posters, believes the canon to be saying it is heresy to advance the belief that {those baptised as infants should be asked at adulthood if they wish to confirm the vows made by others at their baptism, and if they answer “no” they should not be punished other than by excommunication}. Some other posters hold a contrary reading of the canon.

The interest in the Pink article by “my side” in the discussion is that it shows a senior academic, in a book put together by other senior academics, taking for granted, taking as read, that “my side’s” reading is correct.

 

[Denise1957]

I really don’t think this is a Catholic v non-Catholic thing. There is a difference of opinion in this thread. One side, including Catholic as well as non-Catholic posters, believes the canon to be saying it is heresy to advance the belief that {those baptised as infants should be asked at adulthood if they wish to confirm the vows made by others at their baptism, and if they answer “no” they should not be punished other than by excommunication}. Some other posters hold a contrary reading of the canon.

The interest in the Pink article by “my side” in the discussion is that it shows a senior academic, in a book put together by other senior academics, taking for granted, taking as read, that “my side’s” reading is correct.

Thanks for the explanation. Does Thomas Pink specifically address the question about Catholics being asked in adulthood about confirming of baptismal vows, and not being punished if they answer “no” other than being excommunicated? I may have missed it, or maybe he addresses the issue in another way - rather than directly.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Thanks for the explanation. Does Thomas Pink specifically address the question about Catholics being asked in adulthood about confirming of baptismal vows, and not being punished if they answer “no” other than being excommunicated? I may have missed it, or maybe he addresses the issue in another way - rather than directly.

Here it is, on p428 of the Keown and George book:

books.google.co.uk/books?id=Pd0qK5ORcfQC&pg=PA428&lpg=PA428&dq=erasmus+and+trent+canon+14&source=bl&ots=BU-8M3kVAH&sig=gCMggQoIuR2VZ65s7ITcMSMbyt0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=znhuVdOBCIjZtQWrhIGIBQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=erasmus%20and%20trent%20canon%2014&f=false

 

[ericc]

Eric–Do you believe that no-one has the background to this canon? Did you have the time to read the link to Thomas Pink’s essay which gave some background to the canon? What do you think?

Don’t be mistaken. Everyone who read something about Trent already know some background. But who has the FULL insight as to the mind of the canon drafters, the whole environment those drafters find themselves in? I’d imagine these drafters need to take into consideration the whole history of the Church, the prior canons, the writings of the Fathers and those before them, the political realities, the consideration of future implications, the socio-political developments, the message they wanted to pass on and so on. Working with so many constraints amidst poor political and health environment.

Pink’s essay the gist of what I can gather is that the Church’s right to regulate its members remains in force doctrinally. If Erasmus was the target of the canon as he argued, then my contention that canon 14 was aimed at barring advocates of such policy is supported (rather than vow breakers as other posters have argued.)

Pink mentioned a few penalties that can be imposed by the Church which “include such as loss of office and restriction of movement (for heresy and other serious breaches of baptismal obligation), as well as simple exclusion from the sacraments”. But canon 14 itself is silent on to the exact penalties that will be levied on to baptism vow breakers and that is my point. His essay is to refute that there was a change in Church doctrine. But let us get back to the canon, do we know the reasons why the drafters chose to remain silent on the penalties of the vow breakers (if any)? Why is there no elaboration, no specific course of action? Perhaps the Church recognizes that secular penalties are increasingly unenforceable by itself and that using secular authorities as enforcement agents are not practicable? Perhaps. Perhaps the Church sees its powers eroding, or that it sees the development of nation states (such as foreign nations around the world, Asia, Africa, Americas) that will not regard the Church authority to regulate its members as absolute i.e. sovereign nations not recognizing the right of the Church to imposed certain penalties. The Church may retain its right to enforce penalties even though it may not be feasible or practicable. Possible. But there is no point for me to speculate and likewise no point for others to portray their anti-Church bias as the only possible reading.

 

[PJM]

=badnewsbarrett;12885827]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.

The smoking gun can be found at the Council of Trent. For those who don’t know, Trent is the Church council that was held in the wake of the Protestant Reformation. Its purpose was to formally codify and promulgate Catholic doctrine with the full weight of Magisterial authority behind it in order to give a definitive and unchanging answer to all the issues that Protestantism raised. In this description, I am attempting to use language that implies both the iteration of teachings in opposition to Protestant doctrines as well as the implementation of Catholic reforms, which were not necessarily counter to the Reformation.

From the portion On Baptism: “CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that little children, for that they have not actual faith, are not, after having received baptism, to be reckoned amongst the faithful; and that, for this cause, they are to be rebaptized when they have attained to years of discretion; or, that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted, than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be baptized in the faith alone of the Church; let him be anathema.”

Ok, so that’s infant baptism. Despite not having “actual faith” or “years of discretion,” an infant baptism is all the things that any other baptism is. And immediately following this, we come to the smoking gun.

From the Council of Trent, Session 7, the portion On Baptism:
“CANON XIV.-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.” …

This is the smoking gun. Let’s have an in depth discussion, shall we?

This is too good for me to pass up

My dear friend in Christ; what you’re missing here is this:

WHO’S IN CHARGE? US OR GOD?

And the responsibility can’t be shared.

And my friend, I do understand that your just expressing what you have been taught. Sadly it is not the entire truth..

You have reached this conclusion because you were unable, [or perhaps unwilling?] to accept passages such as these: God enlightens those who seek His true Wisdom.

Mt. 16: 18-19 “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”

Mt. 28:16-20 " And the eleven [Remaining Apostles] disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. Going therefore, teach YOU all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU: and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world."

John 17:17-20 "Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. ** As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.** [And **for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;

Here Jesus passes some of His Godly Powers and Authority on to the One Church He just founded; through Peter and His successors. Please READ Mt, 10: 1-8 if you doubt this. Mt. 10: 6-7 compared to Mt 28: 18

Then Jesus COMMITS Himself as the warranty of that Church Teaching His singular faith and moral truths; granted through being entrusted with ALL of the Key’s to heavens gate. . AND the essential power to Govern the Church on behalf of Christ. Mt. 16:19

No other faith or no other church has this personal warranty from Jesus Christ.

Their is no cohesion; only humble obedience in what you expressed.

God Bless you,

Patrick

Acts 28; 27-30 " For I have not spared to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them."

 

[Denise1957]

Here it is, on p428 of the Keown and George book:

books.google.co.uk/books?id=Pd0qK5ORcfQC&pg=PA428&lpg=PA428&dq=erasmus+and+trent+canon+14&source=bl&ots=BU-8M3kVAH&sig=gCMggQoIuR2VZ65s7ITcMSMbyt0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=znhuVdOBCIjZtQWrhIGIBQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=erasmus%20and%20trent%20canon%2014&f=false

Thanks for the link. I don’t know enough about Pink’s position to comment on it, and it’s a very complicated subject. I did find a rebuttal of sorts, linked to from Rorate, by John Lamont. I’m going to read though it, too, to try to understand the issue better. Maybe this link has already been posted on this thread:

academia.edu/877072/Catholic_teaching_on_religion_and_the_state

 

[badnewsbarrett]

Then Jesus COMMITS Himself as the warranty of that Church Teaching His singular faith and moral truths; granted through being entrusted with ALL of the Key’s to heavens gate. . AND the essential power to Govern the Church on behalf of Christ. Mt. 16:19

No other faith or no other church has this personal warranty from Jesus Christ.

Their is no cohesion; only humble obedience in what you expressed.

God Bless you,

Patrick

Hi PJM. I have a very specific question for you, and I’m hoping you can give me a straightforward answer.

The Keys to the Kingdom. The unique authority of the Catholic Church. Let us assume for a moment that all of this is as you say, and exactly as you say it. Speaking specifically of Church authority, the possession of the Keys, and the divine protection from falling into error and whatever else- does all of this indicate that the One True Church will always and forever have the right to coerce its baptized members as it sees fit and have a unique immunity from criticism as it does so? Or does the possession of the Keys, that authority, and protection from error ensure that the One True Church (when truly speaking of the Church itself) will never be guilty of such coercion?

Again, we are assuming just for a moment that you are completely right about all that. Which conclusion does it lead you to? That it is always good and proper for the Church to coerce its baptized members, or that the Church enjoys divine protection from truly falling into such a practice of making fidelity to Catholicism a matter of coercion? Please indicate one choice or the other, and if you don’t completely love either one just tell me which one is most like the line of reasoning that you would continue on with all the Keys and Authority stuff as a starting point.

Thank you in advance for being straightforward and not beating around the bush.

 

[PRmerger]

Speaking specifically of Church authority, the possession of the Keys, and the divine protection from falling into error and whatever else- does all of this indicate that the One True Church will always and forever have the right to coerce its baptized members as it sees fit and have a unique immunity from criticism as it does so?

No. There ought to be no coercion for any baptized members from anyone who has the Keys and the authority of the Chair of Peter.

And on one sitting in the Chair of Peter has immunity from criticism.

The questions appear to be nonsequiturs.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Thanks for the link. I don’t know enough about Pink’s position to comment on it, and it’s a very complicated subject. I did find a rebuttal of sorts, linked to from Rorate, by John Lamont. I’m going to read though it, too, to try to understand the issue better. Maybe this link has already been posted on this thread:

academia.edu/877072/Catholic_teaching_on_religion_and_the_state

Thanks very much, Denise…more reading to do.

I’m part of the way through Pink’s essay. I’m hoping at least a few others will read both essays so we can then discuss them from common reference points? I won’t have much time to read this weekend, so from my end I need a few more days, but this is an interesting subject.

 

[PJM]

=badnewsbarrett;13029280]Hi PJM. I have a very specific question for you, and I’m hoping you can give me a straightforward answer.

The Keys to the Kingdom. The unique authority of the Catholic Church. Let us assume for a moment that all of this is as you say, and exactly as you say it. Speaking specifically of Church authority, the possession of the Keys, and the divine protection from falling into error and whatever else- does all of this indicate that the One True Church will always and forever have the right to coerce its baptized members as it sees fit and have a unique immunity from criticism as it does so?..

Thank you in advance for being straightforward.

CAUTION: Candor ahead

Can. 747 §1. The Church, to which Christ the Lord has entrusted the deposit of faith so that with the assistance of the Holy Spirit it might protect the revealed truth reverently, examine it more closely, and proclaim and expound it faithfully, has the duty and innate right, independent of any human power whatsoever, to preach the gospel to all peoples, also using the means of social communication proper to it.

Can. 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.

§2. No one is ever permitted to coerce persons to embrace the Catholic faith against their conscience.

**Questions **

Are the 10 Commandants optional observance or mandated by God?

Does one Faith have the Authority to impose as a mandate there personal views on another faith?

Gen 17:10

This is my covenant which you shall observe, between me and you, and thy seed after thee: All the male kind of you shall be circumcised:

Exodus 12:17

And you shall observe the feast of the unleavened bread: for in this same day I will bring forth your army out of the land of Egypt, and you shall keep this day in your generations by a perpetual observance.

Exodus 12:25

And when you have entered into the land which the Lord will give you as he hath promised, you shall observe these ceremonies
So friend, are these options that God is giving to His One Chosen People?
The God of the OT is the same One God of the NT.

Yahweh always choose one man to lead His People and be responsible for their Spiritual wellbeing; AND TO SPEAK AND TEACH ON BEHALF OF GOD.

Noah, Abram, the Judges, Kings like David and Jacob, and prophets like Isiah. Christ was only following His own Tradition of One man in charge in choosing Simon-Peter, whom He had renamed long before entrusting all of the Key’s to heaven’s gate to him.** Lk. 6:14 & Mt 7:13-14.**

In the same way as Yahweh acted to impose His way on His Chosen people; [SITED ABOVE] Christ not only permits but MANDATES that Peter and his successors Govern in His anme and to a degree with His Own Powers and Authority. **Mt. 10:1-8. ** Compare Mt 10: 6-7 & Mt. 10: 5-6 “These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: Go YOU not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans ENTER YOU NOT But go YOU rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. … to: Mt 28:19“Going therefore, teach YOU ALL NATIONS”

The Power of the Key’s is absolute.** Jn. 17: 17-20 **“Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent THEM into the world. And for them do I sanctify myself, that THEY also may be sanctified in truth. And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me”

A condition that I think many, perhaps even most Protestants struggle with, because of what I perceive as very little mandated & imposed faith beliefs or practices in their church. For example MUST all Protestant “Keep Holy the Sabbath day”; the second Commandment?.. Therefore it becomes easy to presume that all churches ought to be this way. But that is NOT the Tradition of God’s Chosen people or of Christianity.

Protestantism, like the bible itself were in a sense birthed through the already in existence Catholic Church, who were not only the first Christians, but the ONLY Christians to exist for the first 1,000 years of Christ New One Faith and One Church. Eph 4:1-7. Wycliffe, Luther and Calvin were all apostate Catholic Priest.

Pope Benedict the XVI said it well: “there cannot be your truth and my truth or there would be NO TRUTH.”

So my friend to suppose or desire that the Catholic Church is forcing itself on people against their will is simply not understanding how God chooses to work in the OT under HIS LAWS, mandates and precepts by actually speaking to His chosen leaders; and the NT times, NOW UNDER GRACE, where His Chosen Leaders are empowered and guided to speak on His behalf and then obligates himself to honor these teaching and mandates:

**Mt 16:19 **“And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”

**Jn. 17: 18-20 **“As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent THEM into the world. And for THEM do I sanctify myself, that THEY also may be sanctified in truth. And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me”
Mt. 28: 20 “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU: and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world.”

As I shared in the previous post: the issue is WHO IS IN CHARGE? Either us or God, and the responsibility cannot be shared. Amen!

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[ffg]

However what was the context at Trent ?

Do you think it is wrong to allow free will to leave church and wrong then to bar from sacraments thereafter until repentance (believing again)?
Blessings

Hi Benhur,

Sorry it’s been a few days. I wish I could say my days are filled with internet play. Sorry about the length of this post. If you would believe it, I cut out a lot.

Your first question was Trent’s context. I’m guessing with regard to the text. Let us start with the bigger picture.

Trent was a response to the reformation with the goal of re-emphasizing the CC’s unchanged teachings.

We can see this in the general opening statements (thecounciloftrent.com/), and in the Session 7 opener I put below.

We can only imagine the chaos, right? (We are seeing it today in efforts for modern reforms as well)

Prior to Luther, there were folks who did the same thing that Luther did in determining a different understanding of subject matter from the historical Church. So what is the difference? Why did Luther’s writings hit a chord with folks circa ~1,500, where the same type of actions through the years were generally rejected by Christians?

The Church’s actions with Luther were not different than other people making statements or taking stands against historical Christian teaching (Council’s, corrective action, excommunication if necessary).

So as the reformation starts to flourish, what does the CC do?

Trent.

If there is doubt of the answer to ‘why Trent’ relating to the reformation, or why session seven and by extension Canon 14, one must read the first paragraph of Trent session 7: (Bold and block mine, but for context please consider in entirety)

“For the completion of the salutary doctrine on Justification, which was promulgated with the unanimous consent of the Fathers in the last preceding Session, it hath seemed suitable to treat of the most holy Sacraments of the Church, through which all true justice either begins, or being begun is increased, or being lost is repaired. With this view, in order to destroy the errors and to extirpate the heresies, which have appeared in these our days on the subject of the said most holy sacraments,-as well those which have been revived from the heresies condemned of old by our Fathers, as also those [heresies] newly invented, and which are exceedingly prejudicial to the purity of the Catholic Church, and to the salvation of souls,-the sacred and holy, ecumenical and general Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein, adhering to the doctrine of the holy Scriptures, to the apostolic traditions, and to the consent of other councils and of the Fathers, has thought fit that these present canons be established and decreed; intending, the divine Spirit aiding, to publish later the remaining canons which are wanting for the completion of the work which It has begun.”

Reading the opening statements from 1545 also helps make it easier to understand the big picture and purpose of the canons.

So the context of the writing at Trent is in response to Luther, but expands a bit to encompass older heresies as well.

In light of this -

If I was to put Canon 14 to simple 2015 USA English, first I would consider the Church at the time would have still considered there to be 1 Christianity, so ‘Christian’ being in union with the Church. - it might read something like –

‘A Christian in communion with the Church at baptism, who doesn’t want to be in communion with the Church any longer, is not to be forced to be Christian; Christians who do not want to be in communion with the Church are not to participate in the sacraments until they go to confession and seek absolution. To emphasize, Christians who show they do not want to be in communion with the Church, are not in communion with the Church.’

Your second and third questions as combined are confusing. Obviously, I can’t say it’s wrong to let someone walk per above, and how can I think it is wrong to bar someone from that which they show they do not want anyway?

So I guess the question from all of this - Is it a sin to reject the Church after baptism? Considering the details above, Trent was saying ‘yes’ – Why? Probably has something to do with rejecting God in rejecting His teachings.

Is this teaching of ‘Sin if rejecting the Church’ new or has it ever changed or is it historical?

I think we would conclude after research, it is historical, back to Adam and Eve with the first rejection of God’s teaching.

Which brings us back to –

Trent was a response to the reformation with the goal of re-emphasizing the CC’s unchanged teachings.

Note: This is saying nothing related to how the Church had to shift it’s mindset of how to relate to non-communion Christians after the reformation was NOT another repeat of earlier attempts at heresy, which did not stick. I think we see this most recently in joint Catholic-Lutheran statements, etc… (Having joint statements does not mean historical teaching changes)

Again, sorry it took so long to respond.

Take care,

Mike

 

[badnewsbarrett]

§2. No one is ever permitted to coerce persons to embrace the Catholic faith against their conscience.

…

So my friend to suppose or desire that the Catholic Church is forcing itself on people against their will is simply not understanding how God chooses to work in the OT under HIS LAWS, mandates and precepts by actually speaking to His chosen leaders; and the NT times, NOW UNDER GRACE, where His Chosen Leaders are empowered and guided to speak on His behalf and then obligates himself to honor these teaching and mandates:

**Mt 16:19 **“And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”

**Jn. 17: 18-20 **“As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent THEM into the world. And for THEM do I sanctify myself, that THEY also may be sanctified in truth. And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me”
Mt. 28: 20 “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU: and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world.”

As I shared in the previous post: the issue is WHO IS IN CHARGE? Either us or God, and the responsibility cannot be shared. Amen!

God Bless you,
Patrick

Hi Patrick, thanks for responding. I do wish to clarify a thing or two which may be buried somewhere in this thread or some other thread, but I haven’t clarified it for you personally.

Important Clarification: It has been made super clear to me from numerous sources that the consistent teaching and testimony of the Catholic Church is very much against forcible conversion of non-Christians to Christianity. This is not to say it’s never happened, but I will personally say it’s been a rare thing and it has always been against the consistent teaching of the Church.

With that being said, I am asking about people who were baptized Catholic as infants and later decided to do something silly, like become a heretic or an apostate. I understand that the Catholic Church is and always has been rather thirsty to make sure heresies and teaching damaging to the Church are suppressed- but how far can you go with that? If you attempt to persuade someone against this and they won’t be persuaded, what courses of action are reasonably in bounds for you?

You may have answered this already when you stated that no one is permitted to coerce persons to embrace the Catholic faith against their conscience. I just want to make extra sure, and I want to put this in terms that you’re really comfortable with.

Returning to the initial clarification- we are talking specifically about people who were baptized Catholic, then they became heretics and obstinately refused to bend the knee to Church authority. Let us assume that they aren’t guilty of violence or any actual lawbreaking (unless churchmen have drafted laws against teaching or practicing a certain heresy, which would most certainly be a form of coercion).

In that type of situation, the heretic has been cut off from the sacraments and important people tried to persuade them to bring themselves into line. The heretic refuses and continues doing what heretics do. I’m keeping in mind what you just told me when I ask you this- knowing that God is in charge, what is it that God wants the Catholic Church to do in that situation, and does He place those same sorts of limits on coercive action? (Ie., you shall not ever coerce Anyone to embrace Catholicism against their will).

Of course I have the Reformation and Trent in view here, of course everyone knows things were done very differently then (and previous to then a few different times) compared to how it is done now. I return once again to that question- acknowledging that God is in charge, what does He want the Catholic Church to do there, where coercion is concerned?

And I’ll remind you that there is only one truth, there are not different truths for you and for me, nor are there different truths for us and for them in the 16th century, or for other people in the 12th century. What is the one truth, as I know you are most comfortable with talking about? Heretics, the Catholic Church, coercion- does the initial statement hold up?

§2. No one is ever permitted to coerce persons to embrace the Catholic faith against their conscience.

If it does, then all of this is a simple clarification of an answer already given. If not, perhaps there’s more you want to tell me. I’m just making sure, and I thank you for taking the time to respond.

 

[benhur]

If I was to put Canon 14 to simple 2015 USA English, first I would consider the Church at the time would have still considered there* to be 1 Christianity, *so ‘Christian’ being in union with the Church.

Hi again ffg

Yes, agree to Trent and counter reformation. But, there is more I think. That is, Luther was the tip of iceberg, or the crest of a wave that started way before him (have you ever surfed ? you have to look way out there to see the “beginning” of* the *wave). So you had much history of how to deal with heresies and heretics, form Arians, to Waldenses, to Tyndale, to Huss, to Jews, and not too mention centuries old inquisitions. The first anathema came with Nicea, with civil penalties and enforcement!

So canon 14 deals with maintaining status quo of millennia old “penalties” against some who suggested something different (free will for baptized and barring from sacraments only)

 

[benhur]

A Christian in communion with the Church at baptism, who doesn’t want to be in communion with the Church any longer, is not to be forced to be Christian; Christians who do not want to be in communion with the Church are not to participate in the sacraments until they go to confession and seek absolution. To emphasize, Christians who show they do not want to be in communion with the Church, are not in communion with the Church.’

Like Jeopardy requiring the answer to be the question, canon#14 is what it is* not* be, not what* is*. So what helps in our discussion is to restate what you can not do, and then interpolate why and what should be done. i think your statement is a mix of both and may not be representative of the canons intent.

I do think your statement is representative of what happens today, and what most folks agree to be OK. (but not what is “in the books” per Trent and maybe even still with Vat2).

Thanks for responding. Blessings

 

[ffg]

Hi again ffg

Yes, agree to Trent and counter reformation. But, there is more I think. That is, Luther was the tip of iceberg, or the crest of a wave that started way before him (have you ever surfed ? you have to look way out there to see the “beginning” of* the *wave). So you had much history of how to deal with heresies and heretics, form Arians, to Waldenses, to Tyndale, to Huss, to Jews, and not too mention centuries old inquisitions. The first anathema came with Nicea, with civil penalties and enforcement!

So canon 14 deals with maintaining status quo of millennia old “penalties” against some who suggested something different (free will for baptized and barring from sacraments only)

The further history was not overlooked, it was included in the opening stanza of the session, I just didn’t bold it.

I agree the canon deals with maintaining status quo, I think I said the same thing differently in that these types of council’s pull together to re-emphasize unchanged teachings.

We all have free will. Baptized and not baptized alike. We also all sin, baptized and not baptized alike.

 

[ffg]

Like Jeopardy requiring the answer to be the question, canon#14 is what it is* not* be, not what* is*. So what helps in our discussion is to restate what you can not do, and then interpolate why and what should be done. i think your statement is a mix of both and may not be representative of the canons intent.

I do think your statement is representative of what happens today, and what most folks agree to be OK. (but not what is “in the books” per Trent and maybe even still with Vat2).

Thanks for responding. Blessings

It’s funny, I don’t really see the complication.

Consider - a Catholic who commits a mortal sin, something that is a known wrong of grave matter, done intentionally, like say sex outside of marriage. Something Catholics do constantly.

What’s the church teaching regarding partaking at mass? That doing so is a grave sin when in the state of mortal sin.

The teaching is to not partake until after confession.

It is the same teaching as canon 14!

Which means, rejecting God after accepting God in baptism is a grave sin!

It is in the person’s best interest to clean the soul before partaking again, if they choose to return to the Church.

This is the same today as yesterday and all previous days.

Sin is sin, yesterday, today, tomorrow.

Take care,

Mike

To tie this back to the thread, having a rule doesn’t dictate force, and in this case, it is made quite clear in the canon.

 

[PJM]

=badnewsbarrett;13041330]Hi Patrick, thanks for responding. I do wish to clarify a thing or two which may be buried somewhere in this thread or some other thread, but I haven’t clarified it for you personally.

Important Clarification: It has been made super clear to me from numerous sources that the consistent teaching and testimony of the Catholic Church is very much against forcible conversion of non-Christians to Christianity. This is not to say it’s never happened, but I will personally say it’s been a rare thing and it has always been against the consistent teaching of the Church.

With that being said, I am asking about people who were baptized Catholic as infants and later decided to do something silly, like become a heretic or an apostate. I understand that the Catholic Church is and always has been rather thirsty to make sure heresies and teaching damaging to the Church are suppressed- but how far can you go with that? If you attempt to persuade someone against this and they won’t be persuaded, what courses of action are reasonably in bounds for you?

You may have answered this already when you stated that no one is permitted to coerce persons to embrace the Catholic faith against their conscience. I just want to make extra sure, and I want to put this in terms that you’re really comfortable with.

Returning to the initial clarification- we are talking specifically about people who were baptized Catholic, then they became heretics and obstinately refused to bend the knee to Church authority. Let us assume that they aren’t guilty of violence or any actual lawbreaking (unless churchmen have drafted laws against teaching or practicing a certain heresy, which would most certainly be a form of coercion).

In that type of situation, the heretic has been cut off from the sacraments and important people tried to persuade them to bring themselves into line. The heretic refuses and continues doing what heretics do. I’m keeping in mind what you just told me when I ask you this- knowing that God is in charge, what is it that God wants the Catholic Church to do in that situation, and does He place those same sorts of limits on coercive action? (Ie., you shall not ever coerce Anyone to embrace Catholicism against their will).

Of course I have the Reformation and Trent in view here, of course everyone knows things were done very differently then (and previous to then a few different times) compared to how it is done now. I return once again to that question- acknowledging that God is in charge, what does He want the Catholic Church to do there, where coercion is concerned?

And I’ll remind you that there is only one truth, there are not different truths for you and for me, nor are there different truths for us and for them in the 16th century, or for other people in the 12th century. What is the one truth, as I know you are most comfortable with talking about? Heretics, the Catholic Church, coercion- does the initial statement hold up?

§2. No one is ever permitted to coerce persons to embrace the Catholic faith against their conscience.

If it does, then all of this is a simple clarification of an answer already given. If not, perhaps there’s more you want to tell me. I’m just making sure, and I thank you for taking the time to respond.

Beautifully done. THANK you

Perhaps I am being simplistic in my reply; but to ME the answer you seek is simple.

It revolves around who we permit to be in charge.

Either God IS, or we ARE and their is no sharing the responsibility.

Conversions are God’s territory; not ours. As GRACE alone can influence one to accept and the understand God’s necessarily singular truths per defined issue.

Our task in this:

Know well our faith; what we believe and WHY we can and Do believe it

Live it fully with the help of God’s grace

Share it WHEN the HS provides the opportunity for us to do so.

We “can’t” force anyone to believe who is NOT already seeking God His Way. So when I say we Can;t, I mean that we are UNABLE to do so, Our effort’s though, may not be be in vain, as what we shared, may later be the impetus God’s uses to :move" that Soul closer to Him. Which is why what we do MUST be done clearly, with evidence and above all with charity.

Thanks again for the kind response. I pray this is of assistance to you

God Bless,

Patrick

 

[ffg]

i was just thinking about how great canon 14 is for us baptized sinners. (Considering the canon was written in light of 1 Christianity, the Church)

Someone might say, ‘I regret my earlier decision, I wish I knew how to go back’.

Canon 14 - hit the box and welcome back!

The slaughtered lamb is waiting for you! Clean your soul, partake and be full!

 

[Picky_Picky]

Mike, I’m sorry, but I’m afraid that this:

‘A Christian in communion with the Church at baptism, who doesn’t want to be in communion with the Church any longer, is not to be forced to be Christian.’

is in direct contrast to the canon. That is exactly the opinion which the canon holds be anathema.

Picky

 

[ffg]

Mike, I’m sorry, but I’m afraid that this:

is in direct contrast to the canon. That is exactly the opinion which the canon holds be anathema.

Picky

Hi picky,

This is why earlier I said the term anathema is confusing people. One of the best ways to determine meaning is compare it to other Church teaching, can we find similarities. As timing would have it, we have PJM laying in that sub-section up there.

It seems logical, that the object related to at the end of the canon is the baptized person committing the sin.

The key is - for the baptized person who rejects the Church, it seems logical that the first move in confession, if one decides to return, is to discuss not being in union with the Church for x time.

Take care,

Mike