The Catholic Church and religious coercion- the smoking gun 2

[benhur]

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.”

That is the smoking gun. That is religious coercion.

Hi BB, have not read all posts but read Trent’s gun twice and am not so sure of your premise.

First "grown up " is a little ambiguous though most of us would think almost adult, though not sure because the actual practice today in CC is 11 years old at confirmation, which to me is not yet adult. It does mirror bar mitzvah age, almost. Not sure confirmation age during Trent times or if that is what they were referencing

Secondly, and more importantly there is the word asked and left to their own decision, with no penalty, save no sacraments…Sounds like some of paul’s admonitions to one who rejects the faith and excommunication penalties. Not sure why that would be a big deal, for if one rejects that faith, even Catholic faith, why would he want to do anything Catholic ?

Of course that it is no big deal in a context of Catholic rejecting "Christianity. However, given the historic context, where you were either a Catholic community city, state or P city/state/province,and in light of leaving C for P, it seems coercive and not at all what Paul or original excommunication was for. Trent forced an all or nothing faith with total ostricizing,where "church’ was very much “community and civil life” .You did not have several “competing” churches on Main St. You would have to leave your city, maybe country to practice an un-Catholic Christian faith. That is at least a smoking gun.

PS. Not sure P’s were any more lenient back then, carrying on Catholic paradigm. It was war (with “guns”).

 

[hadulzo]

Sorry in advance for being a bit snide but the smoking gun here is that the Catholic Church has A history to read. The original poster was from an “Evangelical” not sure what that means but i am sure it doesnt go back to 33 ad. I also know church history can easily be taken out of context without look at the specific issues and people they were dealing with just as in scrpture study.

Our Evangelical brother should be careful how much church history he reads. John Henry Cardinal Newman once said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

 

[spedteacherita]

I have short attention span nowadays and long-winded complicated legal documents most often escape me. But if you say it as what it is then I agree with you.

God bless.

Reuben

Someone who understands my life!

 

[Isaiah45_9]

And you CANNOT do that to a legal text. You are murdering it. This is canon law.

You have to think like a lawyer, a canon lawyer, in interpreting the article, which I believe you are not. If you are an expert in history, what you are doing is only summarizing what people did in that time, rightly or wrongly.

Actually, you have to look at the laws in the contextual history and case law they were written in.

That is why there are revisions and appeals to laws, canon law is not exempt from this.

When reading and interpreting a law from the 16th century you have to look at, not only at the history, but the context in which the law was enacted. And if the law has been revised and/or changed, you must look at those revisions and the context of said revisions, and inevitably - its history.

 

[spedteacherita]

Sorry in advance for being a bit snide but the smoking gun here is that the Catholic Church has A history to read. The original poster was from an “Evangelical” not sure what that means but i am sure it doesnt go back to 33 ad. I also know church history can easily be taken out of context without look at the specific issues and people they were dealing with just as in scrpture study.

Our Evangelical brother should be careful how much church history he reads. John Henry Cardinal Newman once said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."

I saved you the problem of looking it up:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism

Christ died for all of our sins on Calvary in 33 AD. What happened in between then and now is unfortunate but it did happen - good and bad. That being said, being a “bit snide” does not help the cause of the discussion. Trent was post-Reformation and I think it’s great to have these learned people discussing what happened there so that all of us can understand.

God bless,

Rita

 

[LutheranScholar]

I saved you the problem of looking it up:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism

Christ died for all of our sins on Calvary in 33 AD. What happened in between then and now is unfortunate but it did happen - good and bad. That being said, being a “bit snide” does not help the cause of the discussion. Trent was post-Reformation and I think it’s great to have these learned people discussing what happened there so that all of us can understand.

God bless,

Rita

Agreed. It is good that people have a solid foundation upon which to stand. We have Concordia and the Catholics have the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If I’m wrong, perhaps a Presbyterian will correct me, but I believe* they *have the Westminster Confession of Faith. All of these things build on the texts that we find in the Bible and the traditions of our respective Confessions. " Christ died for all of our sins on Calvary in 33 A.D…" Well said, Rita. That’s really what it comes down to, not which church is superior to what church, or why this happened, or whose fault is it that this church broke away from that church, etc… Christ died for all of our sins. One might even argue that apologetics is an intense spiritual way to love your neighbor. What greater love for your neighbor would you have than the desire to see your neighbor standing with you in the immortal Light of Heaven and for you to do everything you can to make sure s/ he gets there? I might doctrinally disagree with an Anglican or a Quaker, but I would even so pick up the sword of the Spirit to beat down any demons tormenting a brother in Christ regardless of his ecclesiastical membership.

 

[Telstar]

I really didn’t want to get back into this debate, but I am going to give this one more shot, to try and clarify what these (negative) canons mean. Just to reiterate, a negative canon is a denouncement of a statement of belief, held by certain individuals, that has been found by the Council to be heretical, in it’s entirety. Not just part of it is heretical. The entire statement is to be rejected by all, under penalty of excommunication.

…"*] Infants, not being able to make an act of faith, are not to be reckoned among the faithful after their baptism, and therefore when they come to the age of discretion they are to be rebaptized; or it is better to omit their baptism entirely than to baptize them as believing on the sole faith of the Church, when they themselves can not make a proper act of faith.
*] Those baptized as infants are to be asked when they have grown up, whether they wish to ratify what their sponsors had promised for them at their baptism, and if they reply that they do not wish to do so, they are to be left to their own will in the matter and not to be forced by penalties to lead a Christian life, except to be deprived of the reception of the Eucharist and of the other sacraments, until they reform.

The doctrines here condemned by the Council of Trent, are those of various leaders among the early reformers."
(all emphasis is mine)

The last two statements are the ones we have been discussing, here. They are both clearly referring to the validity (or it’s lack) of Infant Baptism. They are considered to be completely condemned as heretical, because they would call into question the validity of Infant Baptism and require those who were Baptized as children, to either be rebaptized, or to be forced to restate their Baptismal vows when they reach the age of reason. Neither of those is necessary, because the permanent effects of Baptism have already been invoked on the recipient. There is no need to ever repeat it.

Both of these canons are about the same subject, which is those who question the validity of Infant Baptism. For the sake of better understanding, let’s just take a look at what the Baptismal vows really are:Baptismal Vows (From New Advent)

The name popularly given to the renunciations required of an adult candidate for baptism just before the sacrament is conferred. In the case of infant baptism, they are made in the name of the child by the sponsors. It is obvious that these promises have not the theological import of vows properly so called. According to the Roman Ritual, at present in use, three questions are to be addressed to the person to be baptized, as follows: “Dost thou renounce Satan? and all his works? and all his pomps?” To each of these interrogation the person, or the sponsor in his name, replies: “I do renounce”.
So, what do any of these three vows have to do with a Christian choosing to voluntarily leave the Catholic Church? Aren’t they clearly statements that any Christian would freely choose to restate, and not deny (unless, of course, they actually wanted to become a satanist)? What possible reason would anyone have to even want to “ask” someone to retake these vows when they were “grown up”, UNLESS they considered the Baptism performed in their infancy to be invalid?

There’s no “forcing” here (in the condemned proposition) only giving people a chance to repudiate their baptismal vows without being punished in any way other than being deprived of the Sacraments.

The statement proposes that “they are to be asked” when they’re grown up. By denouncing this statement as false, the Council is saying that there is no need to ask them, or to impose any penalties on them. The suggestion that they should be asked, was made by those who, at that time, questioned the validity of the Baptism, which was performed on them when they were infants. That’s the problem with the entire proposal. It has nothing to do with anyone voluntarily leaving the Catholic Church, or with them refusing to restate their Baptismal vows. They don’t need to be asked, because their Baptism is valid, forever. Would any Christian refuse to agree with the vows that they’ve taken in Baptism, or that their sponsors took in their place? NO! This canon refutes the necessity of anyone having to retake their Baptismal vows, as if they really didn’t take them in the first place, not even if they were made for them by their Godparents (sponsors).

All of this discussion being thrown around about the penalties mentioned in this NEGATIVE canon (except the anathema declared against ANYONE WHO BELIEVES IT), is completely useless, because the Council is denying that there is any need for a penalty to be imposed, at all. The only ones who would want a penalty to be imposed, are the ones that question the validity of Infant Baptism. The Council is stating that Infant Baptism is valid, forever, and no one should question whether it is, or not.

Dear God, I hope this helps to put an end to all of this futile debate over penalties that the Church has clearly declared to be completely unnecessary.

 

[JackVk]

Thanks for that explanation, Telstar. I saw thia thread earlier and thought, “geez, so I’m a heretic for not breaking the knees of fallen-away Catholics?” At first glance, it appears that it contradicts St. Augustine, Pope Leo XIII, and Vatican II, all of which spoke against coercion into Catholicism.

 

[Telstar]

Thanks for that explanation, Telstar. I saw thia thread earlier and thought, “geez, so I’m a heretic for not breaking the knees of fallen-away Catholics?” At first glance, it appears that it contradicts St. Augustine, Pope Leo XIII, and Vatican II, all of which spoke against coercion into Catholicism.

Thanks. I just had to give it another whirl when I saw the thread bounce back up, again (it refuses to stay dead… lol).

PS: I absolutely love your whole sig!

 

[Contarini]

I really didn’t want to get back into this debate, but I am going to give this one more shot, to try and clarify what these (negative) canons mean. Just to reiterate, a negative canon is a denouncement of a statement of belief, held by certain individuals, that has been found by the Council to be heretical, in it’s entirety. Not just part of it is heretical. The entire statement is to be rejected by all, under penalty of excommunication.
Both of these canons are about the same subject, which is those who question the validity of Infant Baptism.

You haven’t substantiated that claim. It seems to me to be true only in the sense that the second canon is affirming what the Fathers of Trent considered to be a necessary consequence of the validity of infant baptism: that baptismal vows remain binding on those baptize as infants, without any need for reaffirmation, and that those baptized as infancy may be held to their vows by civil penalties and not just by exclusion from the sacraments.

For the sake of better understanding, let’s just take a look at what the Baptismal vows really are:Baptismal Vows (From New Advent)

According to the Roman Ritual, at present in use, three questions are to be addressed to the person to be baptized, as follows: “Dost thou renounce Satan? and all his works? and all his pomps?” To each of these interrogation the person, or the sponsor in his name, replies: “I do renounce”.//QUOTE]

And then the priest asks the candidate/sponsor to profess faith in the words of the Apostles’ Creed. I wonder why you missed that out?

So, what do any of these three vows have to do with a Christian choosing to voluntarily leave the Catholic Church?

Well, from the standpoint of sixteenth-century Catholicism, those who left the Church did so because they were seduced by Satan.

But more to the point, the baptismal promises include the profession of faith, including a profession of faith in the Holy Catholic Church (see the Roman Catechism, the section beginning “The Ceremonies Observed After Coming to the Font,” toward the end of the section on baptism to which I link)

By your logic, the canon is only talking about satanists, which is highly unlikely.

What possible reason would anyone have to even want to “ask” someone to retake these vows when they were “grown up”,

UNLESS they considered the Baptism performed in their infancy to be invalid?

Reaffirmation of baptismal vows is now a Catholic rite, isn’t it? Or is this link bogus?

You reaffirm your vows not to say that they are invalid, but to renew your commitment and remind yourself of their power. Also because, in modern society, Catholics and Protestants alike accept that people may in fact walk away from their promises and should not be compelled to do otherwise by any penalties except for exclusion from the sacraments.

Precisely the position Trent condemns:shrug:

The statement proposes that “they are to be asked” when they’re grown up

. By denouncing this statement as false, the Council is saying that there is no need to ask them, or to impose any penalties on them.

The second clause makes no sense. The condemned proposition is not proposing to impose penalties. It is proposing not to impose penalties. The point of asking them, in the proposition as condemned by Trent, is that if they choose not to renew them then they will be allowed to leave the Catholic Church without incurring punishment other than exclusion from the Sacraments. You are really torturing the text to make it say that the condemned proposition is somehow interested in coercing people or imposing penalties. What is being condemned, clearly, is a proposal not to coerce those who want to leave except insofar as exclusion from the sacraments is “compelling.”

 

[Contarini]

The suggestion that they should be asked, was made by those who, at that time, questioned the validity of the Baptism,

You have not shown this to be true. You assume it to be true. No doubt you want it to be true. But you have given no reason why someone not sharing your very intense desire to defend this canon should agree with you.

which was performed on them when they were infants. That’s the problem with the entire proposal. It has nothing to do with anyone voluntarily leaving the Catholic Church, or with them refusing to restate their Baptismal vows.

That’s quite a trick. The canon condemns the idea that those who say they won’t renew their vows are to be left to their own will. And yet you say that it has nothing to do with them leaving or refusing to renew their vows.

Saying that a text has nothing to do with what it is clearly talking about, but is really talking about something different that you find more convenient, is not very convincing.

They don’t need to be asked, because their Baptism is valid, forever. Would any Christian refuse to agree with the vows that they’ve taken in Baptism, or that their sponsors took in their place?

From the point of view of the medieval and early modern Catholic Church, heresy constituted a violation of baptismal vows. As the 19th-century Catholic bishop Wilhelm Emmanuel von Ketteler pointed out in his treatise on religious freedom, “Baptized Christians, however, were regarded as bound by their baptismal vows to be loyal to the Church.” (The entire treatise is worth reading as a much more reasonable attempt to deal with this issue than yours.)

All of this discussion being thrown around about the penalties mentioned in this NEGATIVE canon (except the anathema declared against ANYONE WHO BELIEVES IT), is completely useless, because the Council is denying that there is any need for a penalty to be imposed, at all.

That would be why it condemns the people saying that no penalties should be imposed?

The only ones who would want a penalty to be imposed, are the ones that question the validity of Infant Baptism.

Which would be why they say that no penalties should be imposed, I guess:shrug:

It looks to me as if you are trying very hard to make this text say the opposite of what it says. (Except about the validity of infant baptism. We agree that the Council is affirming that.)

The Council is stating that Infant Baptism is valid, forever, and no one should question whether it is, or not.

Dear God, I hope this helps to put an end to all of this futile debate over penalties that the Church has clearly declared to be completely unnecessary.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t, because you have the text of the Council and the entire historical context of the time against you.

The Council did not declare penalties to be unnecessary. It declared them to be legitimate.

It condemned those who rejected penalties. There is no indication that the people being condemned in this canon wanted to impose penalties on anyone.

Obviously the people who will “vote” on whether your argument is persuasive are the lurkers who are undecided on the matter. But it seems to me as if you are probably doing a lot of harm to your own cause by these highly unconvincing arguments. You are really making it seem as if Catholics have a problem with history and just can’t deal reasonably with the evidence of their own authoritative texts.

Of course this isn’t true of Catholics as a whole. But people coming to this forum would get the impression from your posts that it is.

Edwin

 

[AbideWithMe]

Reaffirmation of baptismal vows is now a Catholic rite, isn’t it? Or is this link bogus?

Telstar—In addition to the above link, try googling “ratifying our baptismal yes”: google.com/#q=ratifying+our+baptismal+yes. The first link I get from that search is a short PDF from St. Patrick’s Catholic Church in Brighton Michigan, titled “Ratification of Our Baptismal Yes”, and it’s followed by other Catholic sources which speak of ratifying baptismal promises as a good thing.

I think there are a number of problems with your interpretation of the canon under discussion; that’s why people are questioning your interpretation.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Thanks for that explanation, Telstar. I saw thia thread earlier and thought, “geez, so I’m a heretic for not breaking the knees of fallen-away Catholics?” At first glance, it appears that it contradicts St. Augustine, Pope Leo XIII, and Vatican II, all of which spoke against coercion into Catholicism.

I don’t think the canon was about coercion into Catholicism, but rather about keeping the sheep within the fence (presumably for their own good and the good of Christian society) once they were validly baptized.

 

[Contarini]

Thanks for that explanation, Telstar. I saw thia thread earlier and thought, “geez, so I’m a heretic for not breaking the knees of fallen-away Catholics?” At first glance, it appears that it contradicts St. Augustine, Pope Leo XIII, and Vatican II, all of which spoke against coercion into Catholicism.

Actually Augustine spoke in favor of coercion: “compelle intrare.” But not lethal penalties. (We are of course talking about heresy or apostasy among the baptized, not about compelling the unbaptized to convert.)

You would not be expected to break the knees of fallen-away Catholics, though such things did happen.

The canon is not necessarily talking about lethal or corporal penalties, though we know historically that such penalties were in place and would surely have been in the minds of the Fathers of the Council as part of the system they were defending. But such things as fines or civil disabilities would clearly suffice according to the language of the canon. I’m open to the argument that the canon isn’t actually saying that penalties should be imposed, only that it’s heretical to say that they shouldn’t. Historically, the degree of coercion used, or whether it should be used at all, was considered a prudential matter. What is being condemned is an outright rejection of coercion.

That still poses some serious difficulties, because as you say it appears to contradict later teaching such as that of Vatican II.

Would-be defenders of the Faith would impress non-Catholics a lot more if they admitted the difficulty honestly instead of trying desperately to explain it away.

Edwin

 

[Mystophilus]

The statement proposes that “they are to be asked” when they’re grown up. By denouncing this statement as false, the Council is saying that there is no need to ask them, or to impose any penalties on them.

If the canon *only *said, “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; let him be anathema”, your reading would make sense of the canon.

The canon does not say only that, but instead declares that the person is anathematized who permits asking and rejects the idea of applying penalties.

This canon refutes the necessity of anyone having to retake their Baptismal vows

It does refute that but it does not refute that alone.

What possible reason would anyone have to even want to “ask” someone to retake these vows when they were “grown up”, UNLESS they considered the Baptism performed in their infancy to be invalid?

Precisely: it seeks to protect the sanctity and permanency of Catholic baptism, most probably against two groups: a) Protestants who might ask grown-up Catholics to convert, and b) Muslims who might ask grown-up Catholics to convert (which was happening only a few hundred miles from Trent).

As a means of protecting the sanctity and permanency of Catholic baptism, it takes aim not only at the people who are most directly involved (the Protestant or Muslim proselytizers) but also at any Catholics who might collude with them and say, “It’s okay; the person has grown up now and can make his/her own decisions.” As a result, the canon anathematizes any common, lay Catholic who says, "It’s okay; the person has grown up now and can make his/her own decisions’, it anathematizes any Catholic cleric who says, “It’s okay; the person has grown up now and can make his/her own decisions”, and it anathematizes any secular ruler “It’s okay; the person has grown up now and can make his/her own decisions.”

This is a device for keeping people within the Catholic fold.

All of this discussion being thrown around about the penalties mentioned in this NEGATIVE canon (except the anathema declared against ANYONE WHO BELIEVES IT), is completely useless

No, it isn’t: the desire to understand more about history is far from useless. :tsktsk:

 

[Contarini]

No, I think someone else (forget who) was right in suggesting that the idea being condemned here is associated with Erasmus. Erasmus pioneered the idea of “renewing baptismal vows” and also (at least in his early years) criticized the persecution of heretics.

Edwin

 

[Mystophilus]

No, I think someone else (forget who) was right in suggesting that the idea being condemned here is associated with Erasmus. Erasmus pioneered the idea of “renewing baptismal vows” and also (at least in his early years) criticized the persecution of heretics.

Edwin

I don’t doubt that its most immediate concern lay with the Reformation (see, for example, Rome’s insistence upon ratification of the Council in France, against the Edict of Nantes), but the coincidence of the form with the practice of devshirme is just too coincidental. I have yet to find anything concrete to support that suspicion, however.

 

[Telstar]

Just to reiterate, a negative canon is a denouncement of a statement of belief, held by certain individuals, that has been found by the Council to be heretical, in it’s entirety.

The statement proposes that “they are to be asked” when they’re grown up. By denouncing this statement as false, the Council is saying that there is no need to ask them, or to impose any penalties on them.

The only ones who would want a penalty to be imposed, are the ones that question the validity of Infant Baptism. The Council is stating that Infant Baptism is valid, forever, and no one should question whether it is, or not.

In other words, once you have been validly Baptized by ANY Christian church, at any age, there is no need to ever be Baptized, again. Being Baptized means you belong to Jesus Christ, forever. That’s the point!

If the canon *only *said, “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; let him be anathema”, your reading would make sense of the canon.

The canon does not say only that, but instead declares that the person is anathematized who permits asking and rejects the idea of applying penalties.

Two very significant words in this canon, “thus Baptized”, seem to be glossed over by all those who continue to argue that it refers to people who may want to leave the Church. This canon is directly relating back to the previous canon concerning… Infant Baptism!

Why would you even think there was any reason to consider whether or not penalties should be applied? The Baptized haven’t done anything wrong. They certainly wouldn’t have ‘refused’ if they were never asked to ratify in the first place. Would they? You’re trying to apply the second half, as if they have been asked AND refused. The Church says no one should ask them. If no one can ask them, then the rest of the statement is completely irrelevant.

This canon refutes the necessity of anyone having to retake their Baptismal vows

It does refute that but it does not refute that alone.

So, if your kids **never **had anyone knock on your door that said they were your friend and wanted to be let in, would the second part of your rule still apply? Would they still need to call you as if it had happened? If they didn’t call you, would you still think they broke your rule? I would think that if no one asked them, then there’s no need for them to call you, but maybe you’d see that situation differently, too.

What possible reason would anyone have to even want to “ask” someone to retake these vows when they were “grown up”, UNLESS they considered the Baptism performed in their infancy to be invalid?

Precisely: it seeks to protect the sanctity and permanency of Catholic baptism,

It seeks to protect all of the Baptized, no matter who Baptized them, from being told that they really aren’t Baptized if they were Baptized as children.

…most probably against two groups: a) Protestants who might ask grown-up Catholics to convert, and b) Muslims who might ask grown-up Catholics to convert (which was happening only a few hundred miles from Trent). As a means of protecting the sanctity and permanency of Catholic baptism, it takes aim not only at the people who are most directly involved…

This is a device for keeping people within the Catholic fold.

Now, you’re speculating on this whole other scenario that is never even remotely mentioned in the canon (because it has absolutely nothing to do with it). Why? Because, it’s your own personal opinion, and what you want to believe the canon ‘really means’, so you continue to twist it into something it was never intended to be. If the Council had intended to specifically address any of the points you mentioned, they certainly would have done that, in another canon. All of your hypothesizing, as well as that of others who do the same thing in this thread, is based on your own bias against the Church. None of it has anything to do with this canon, but you continually try to make it fit your own agenda, any way you can.

All of this discussion being thrown around about the penalties mentioned in this NEGATIVE canon (except the anathema declared against ANYONE WHO BELIEVES IT), is completely useless

No, it isn’t: the desire to understand more about history is far from useless. :tsktsk:

I’m sorry, but in this case it is. IMHO, you’re not really seeking a true understanding of history. You’re trying to apply true historical facts in such a way that supports your views, even if they are unrelated to the specific subject at hand. You only want it to be true so you can justify your own beliefs. The only ones that are affected by this canon are those that question the validity of Infant Baptism. They are the ones that are declared to be heretical. But, even their Baptisms are still valid, as long as they were Baptized with water, and by the correct formula, with the intention of doing what the Catholic Church has always done in Her Baptisms. The rest of your hypothetical reasoning is just that, and it is completely irrelevant.

 

[Mystophilus]

In other words, once you have been validly Baptized by ANY Christian church, at any age, there is no need to ever be Baptized, again. Being Baptized means you belong to Jesus Christ, forever. That’s the point!

If that alone were the point, then the anathema would be unnecessary: the canon could simply affirm that no baptized person should ever be rebaptized.

At the time, some Protestants (called Anabaptists because of this) were questioning the validity of infant baptism, saying that children could not properly consent and thus could not be validly baptized. These are the people anathematized in canon 13.

In addition, there is the speculation that it refers to the Ottoman practice of devshirme, something which I wonder about because of the historical context and because of canon 14’s usage of “Christian” instead of “Catholic”.

Two very significant words in this canon, “thus Baptized”, seem to be glossed over by all those who continue to argue that it refers to people who may want to leave the Church. This canon is directly relating back to the previous canon concerning… Infant Baptism!

Yes, it is referring back to canon 13 about infant baptism, because it is anathematizing collusion with the Anabaptists, or the Muslims, or any similar party.

Why would you even think there was any reason to consider whether or not penalties should be applied? The Baptized haven’t done anything wrong.

Reread the canon: the unspecified penalties are to be applied to the baptized who choose not to ratify their sponsor’s promises, i.e. to apostatize. Maybe you do not consider apostasy to be wrong, but the Council evidently did.

You’re trying to apply the second half, as if they have been asked AND refused.

That is precisely what the canon says they have done: “children, are, when they have grown up, to be asked …] they answer that they will not”.

The Church says no one should ask them. If no one can ask them, then the rest of the statement is completely irrelevant.

The statement was relevant enough to the Council to include it in their canon because, as noted above, people were asking them.

So, if your kids **never **had anyone knock on your door that said they were your friend and wanted to be let in, would the second part of your rule still apply?

As stated above, we have two contemporary groups performing the very activity described by the Council.

Now, you’re speculating on this whole other scenario that is never even remotely mentioned in the canon (because it has absolutely nothing to do with it). Why? Because, it’s your own personal opinion, and what you want to believe the canon ‘really means’, so you continue to twist it into something it was never intended to be. If the Council had intended to specifically address any of the points you mentioned, they certainly would have done that, in another canon. All of your hypothesizing, as well as that of others who do the same thing in this thread, is based on your own bias against the Church. None of it has anything to do with this canon, but you continually try to make it fit your own agenda, any way you can.

As impressed as I am by your faith in your powers of mind-reading, I would advise revisiting the Forum Rules on Charity regarding your wanton personal attacks here.

Further, I would point out that I have been discussing what the canon actually says, in reference to its precise words, not ignoring any of them: 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.

I’m sorry, but in this case it is.

As you have amply demonstrated above, historical enquiry is far from useless: recognising the historical context means acknowledging that the denounced question was being asked, and could prevent people from the peculiar tactic of trying to represent the Council as having thoughtlessly added a section on an impossible event.

 

[Contarini]

In other words, once you have been validly Baptized by ANY Christian church, at any age, there is no need to ever be Baptized, again. Being Baptized means you belong to Jesus Christ, forever. That’s the point!

Two very significant words in this canon, “thus Baptized”, seem to be glossed over by all those who continue to argue that it refers to people who may want to leave the Church. This canon is directly relating back to the previous canon concerning… Infant Baptism!

No one is “glossing over” this. Of course it follows on from the previous one. But it’s not simply a repetition. It addresses a further issue: granted that, as the previous canon has established, infant baptism is valid, what about the possibility that people baptized as infants might be given a chance to renew or renounce their vows, and allowed peacefully to walk away from their vows without the severe penalties that were in fact being imposed by governments? The canon anathematizes this proposal.

Why would you even think there was any reason to consider whether or not penalties should be applied?

Because the canon considers the question, and answers “yes, they should, or at least they may be if the authorities consider it prudent.” (That is the meaning of anathematizing those who say that penalties shouldn’t be imposed–it may not mean that they have to be, but it certainly means that they may legitimately be.)

The Baptized haven’t done anything wrong. They certainly wouldn’t have ‘refused’ if they were never asked to ratify in the first place. Would they? You’re trying to apply the second half, as if they have been asked AND refused. The Church says no one should ask them. If no one can ask them, then the rest of the statement is completely irrelevant.

So the Council just threw in a completely irrelevant phrase, according to you, referring to a situation that could not possibly arise? Some defender of the Council you are!

So, if your kids **never **had anyone knock on your door that said they were your friend and wanted to be let in, would the second part of your rule still apply?

No one would make such a rule if that wasn’t a possibility. The Council makes such a rule. Therefore it’s a real possibility. Therefore your interpretation is clearly wrong.

You can’t explain why the Council talks about penalties at all.

I (and anyone else who reads the text with basic historical knowledge of the period and without a stubborn determination to whitewash the Council) can.

Therefore, your interpretation clearly fails. It doesn’t account for the evidence.

Historically, it is very easy to see what this refers to: it’s defending the existing practice of holding people accountable as adults to vows taken on their behalf in childhood. This was important because the Church had always condemned forced conversion. Yet civil penalties were imposed on those baptized people who violated Church teaching. That could only be just if infant baptism bound the person for life, just as if he/she had taken the vows freely as an adult.

All of your hypothesizing, as well as that of others who do the same thing in this thread, is based on your own bias against the Church.//QUOTE]

I think Mystophilus is probably wrong in suggesting that this has something to do with devshirme. He may be right, but I agree that it’s a highly speculative interpretation.

Your interpretation, though, is much worse than speculative. It makes no sense whatever of the text before us. It requires us to believe that the second half of the canon is completely irrelevant and unnecessary, and that the canon is simply repeating what the previous canon already said.

I’m sorry, but in this case it is.

That is absurd. History is always relevant in understanding a historical text.

IMHO, you’re not really seeking a true understanding of history. You’re trying to apply true historical facts in such a way that supports your views, even if they are unrelated to the specific subject at hand. You only want it to be true so you can justify your own beliefs.

This is quite clearly true for you, I’m afraid. You are declaring history irrelevant and the texts of the Council redundant and repetitive–extreme hermeneutical strategies that no one resorts to unless they are under some pretty severe pressure. I.e., you find a reasonable historical interpretation of the text deeply threatening to your beliefs and you cannot possibly admit it.

The only ones that are affected by this canon are those that question the validity of Infant Baptism.

And those who want to give the baptized a chance to reaffirm or reject their commitment to the Church without being punished (other than by exclusion from the sacraments) in case they make the “wrong” choice.

Edwin