The Catholic Church and religious coercion- the smoking gun 2

[Novocastrian]

For the sake of absolute clarity, let’s revisit the canon itself.

“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.”

What is the canon, read literally, actually saying?

It sets up a hypothetical situation, and then condemns an opinion about that situation.

A. The Situation.

1. It presupposes the baptism of children.

hose who have been thus baptized when children

1. It envisages those children being asked to affirm their baptismal promises.

[If] asked whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their names when they were baptized

1. Further envisages that they, having been asked, will refuse to do so.

and that, in case they answer that they will not

The Condemned Opinion

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

The *opinion condemned *is that those who refuse to affirm their baptismal promises ought to suffer no penalty except participation in the Sacraments.

I.e., the Council holds open the possibility that other penalties are allowed.

Note

until they repent

The above implies that sin has already been incurred; one repents of sin. Sin is not a penalty to be added. In other words, the penalties which may be added go beyond (a) denial of the sacraments, and (b) the state of sin.

 

[Telstar]

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.

The anathema certainly was necessary. The canon addressed people in the Church who were being influenced by those outside the Church, that were raising doubts in them regarding the effectiveness of Infant Baptism. Their suggested solution was to say that those “thus Baptized” should at least be asked in an official manner (by a Priest or other Church official) to ratify their Baptismal vows, just to be sure. The doubters also suggested that in case someone “refused”, then they: “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”. But, the Council denies that there’s any need for the Church to ever ask the question, so there’s no need to punish anyone. No one should be expected to answer a question that they were never asked, should they? It doesn’t matter if Joe Schmoe asks them. The Church is the only one who has the authority to ask them, but She says there is no need.

The Council says that this is a heretical way of thinking about Infant Baptism, because it casts doubt on whether it should even be done. By this canon, the Council affirms to all, that those Baptisms are 100% valid, and no one should question it. So, there’s no need for the Church to require “those thus Baptized” to repeat their vows, as if there were any doubt.

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”.

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.

Those are some of the ones outside the Church, that I was referring to, above. Yes, canon 13 addressed the question of re-baptizing, but it didn’t address the suggestion that they should at least be required to ratify their vows. That’s why canon 14 was required.

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.

Apostasy was not the issue. The punishments were suggested by the doubters that wanted a change made in Church practice. Those punishments would be applied to anyone that would refuse to ratify their vows, if that law was changed. They were never endorsed by the Council. In fact, the Council refused to make any change in Church practice on the subject, and declared it to be heretical. That automatically nullified all punishments mentioned, because they were conditional on the first part of the proposed change being enacted.

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

You have no authority to ask me that question, so why should I have to respond? Why would you think the Church should want to punish me if I refuse to do what you ask, when She declared that asking anyone that question is a heretical act?

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

Maybe you’re avoiding answering my actual question, because it makes a valid point.

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.

If I’ve broken the rules or been uncharitable, I apologize. I was merely expressing my personal opinion on what I’ve seen happening in this thread.

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:

Yet, you continue to bring in other subjects that are completely unrelated, because you insist that your interpretation, that it refers to apostasy, is correct. It’s not.

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.

I have no doubt that influences of the time were relevant to the formation of this canon, but I disagree with you on which historical facts are actually relevant to it, and what it means. Most of the people asking those questions, were not doing so in any official capacity. But, the subject was causing a lot of confusion amongst the faithful. That’s why this canon is important. The Church is reaffirming that no one has any authority to question anyone regarding their faith, either in Infant Baptism, or anything else.

 

[Mystophilus]

Their suggested solution was to say that those “thus Baptized” should at least be asked in an official manner (by a Priest or other Church official)

Sorry, but what’s your source for this last claim? The canon itself refers only to their being asked, not to the agent of such inquiry.

But, the Council denies that there’s any need for the Church to ever ask the question, so there’s no need to punish anyone.

The Council certainly implicitly denies any need for the Church to ask the question, yes, but, since others outside the Church were asking the question, the potential need for those vague “other penalties” arises there.

The Council says that this is a heretical way of thinking about Infant Baptism, because it casts doubt on whether it should even be done.

Agreed.

Apostasy was not the issue. The punishments were suggested by the doubters that wanted a change made in Church practice.

Sorry, but what is your source for this claim about the process of canon writing? Like the one above, it presents a narrative about the Council, but I don’t know where you’re getting that narrative.

You have no authority to ask me that question, so why should I have to respond? Why would you think the Church should want to punish me if I refuse to do what you ask, when She declared that asking anyone that question is a heretical act?

I didn’t ask you a question, and certainly not *that *one. Why would I ask you that question?

Maybe you’re avoiding answering my actual question, because it makes a valid point.

Sorry, I did answer it, but apparently not explicitly enough: because event A (knocking on the door / saying that the baptized can be asked) *does *happen in the specified context, event B (claiming a right to be let in / claiming that no further action should be taken if they dissent) remains relevant. The canon does not say, “If A happens, but it will never happen, so never mind.” It does not say, “A should never happen.” It says, “If A happens and B happens, that is totally unacceptable.”

If I’ve broken the rules or been uncharitable, I apologize. I was merely expressing my personal opinion on what I’ve seen happening in this thread.

Thank you for the apology. My purpose and my actions are not others’. I’m still wondering what the scope of the unspecified penalties was, and whether the Ottomans were on the councillors’ minds.

you insist that your interpretation, that it refers to apostasy, is correct. It’s not.

I’m sorry, but you have not come remotely close to demonstrating this. The Anabaptists were the ones who were teaching the ideas denounced in canons 12 and 13. Both they and the Ottomans were practising the asking denounced in canon 14. Neither of those groups was doing so to encourage people to remain Catholic.

Most of the people asking those questions, were not doing so in any official capacity.

The groups identified thus far were not even Catholics, which is quite possibly why the canon does not directly address the people asking the questions: it addresses the people who agree with such asking and with then doing nothing if the answer is negative. This is why I referred to secular rulers earlier.

 

[Telstar]

Sorry, but what’s your source for this last claim? The canon itself refers only to their being asked, not to the agent of such inquiry.

I don’t have any other source than simple logic and a Catholic perspective. If the Council is addressing Canon Law of the Catholic Church, who else would they even consider to have any authority to ask a Catholic that question? It was people within the Church that were calling for a change to be made in Church policy. They wanted Her to ask “those thus Baptized” to ratify their Baptismal vows when they grew up, as if they were invalid. This canon addresses those who were seeking the Church to make a change.

The Council certainly implicitly denies any need for the Church to ask the question, yes, but, since others outside the Church were asking the question, the potential need for those vague “other penalties” arises there.

Those outside the Church don’t really matter in this case, except that they were the source of the confusion of those within the Church. This canon addresses a proposed change to be made in the Church’s policy regarding Infant Baptism. The Church is denying any need for a change, because by making that change the Church would be admitting that Infant Baptism may be invalid, which is untrue. It’s something that’s been practiced by the Church since the time of the Apostles, although it has been hotly debated since the ECF. This canon reaffirms that it most certainly is valid, so questioning it’s validity is heretical. Questioning its validity, at all, is what’s being anathematized, here.

Agreed.

Thank you.

Sorry, but what is your source for this claim about the process of canon writing? Like the one above, it presents a narrative about the Council, but I don’t know where you’re getting that narrative.

Again, just my own simple logic and experience. I’m completely uneducated, and certainly not an expert in Canon Law, but I can read that old style of English. (I use the Douay-Rheims Bible, so it’s very familiar.) I have also read a fair amount about these kinds of debates over Church policy in the past. I’ve read about the what many of the ECFs have said about Baptism. IMHO, this canon is only addressing the validity of Infant Baptism, and denying that there is any need for “those thus Baptized” as babies to be required to renew their vows, because it would be foolish to do so. That’s why I do not believe there is any other purpose involved, because none are mentioned. Apostasy most certainly is not mentioned. If it had anything to do with it, it would have been. Inferring that it is related, is putting words in the Council’s mouth.

I didn’t ask you a question, and certainly not *that *one. Why would I ask you that question?

Sorry, that was meant as a general ‘you’, not a specific ‘you’. It was meant to be hypothetical.

Sorry, I did answer it, but apparently not explicitly enough: because event A (knocking on the door / saying that the baptized can be asked) does happen in the specified context, event B (claiming a right to be let in / claiming that no further action should be taken if they dissent) remains relevant. The canon does not say, “If A happens, but it will never happen, so never mind.” It does not say, “A should never happen.” It says, "If A happens and B happens, that is totally unacceptable."

I would agree that the last statement is correct, because it says both parts of the proposition are being anathematized. The ‘doubters’ of the validity of Infant Baptism are proposing that the Church should ask the question, and, that She should punish ‘dissenters’ by barring them from receiving the sacraments until ‘they repent’. That’s why the entire proposition is being anathematized by the Council. It states that anyone who persists in believing that the Church should do such a thing, is subject to excommunication as a heretic.

Thank you for the apology. My purpose and my actions are not others’. I’m still wondering what the scope of the unspecified penalties was, and whether the Ottomans were on the councillors’ minds.

I agree. Your responses have not been abrasive or condescending, while some ‘others’ certainly have been. I was just venting my general frustration to the wrong person.

Again, all of the proposed penalties were those suggested by the ‘doubters’ within the Church, that wanted Her to make a change. Their whole proposition was declared to be heretical by this canon, including the proposed penalties.

I’m sorry, but you have not come remotely close to demonstrating this. The Anabaptists were the ones who were teaching the ideas denounced in canons 12 and 13. Both they and the Ottomans were practising the asking denounced in canon 14. Neither of those groups was doing so to encourage people to remain Catholic.

I hope I have, by now. They were certainly the ones that influenced the ‘doubters’ within the Church to ask for this proposed change. But, this canon was not directed to what anyone outside the Catholic Church did. It was a direct response to people within the Church that expressed doubt in the validity of Infant Baptism.

The groups identified thus far were not even Catholics, which is quite possibly why the canon does not directly address the people asking the questions: it addresses the people who agree with such asking and with then doing nothing if the answer is negative. This is why I referred to secular rulers earlier.

That’s the point. It addresses the concerns of ‘doubters’ within the Church, by clearly stating that the Church will not change her policy on Infant Baptism.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

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.”

I just read the OP. Way late. But I feel like the reading comprehension of the canon was lacking. So, let me see if I understand correctly: if they reject their baptism, they are to be left to their own will, and are not to be compelled to live a Christian life, but won’t be able to receive the sacraments. Yes? I don’t see the problem. Isn’t this exactly what happens today? How is letting them do what they want coercion? I really think something was misread.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t have any other source than simple logic and a Catholic perspective. If the Council is addressing Canon Law of the Catholic Church, who else would they even consider to have any authority to ask a Catholic that question? It was people within the Church that were calling for a change to be made in Church policy. They wanted Her to ask “those thus Baptized” to ratify their Baptismal vows when they grew up, as if they were invalid. This canon addresses those who were seeking the Church to make a change.

Those outside the Church don’t really matter in this case, except that they were the source of the confusion of those within the Church. This canon addresses a proposed change to be made in the Church’s policy regarding Infant Baptism. The Church is denying any need for a change, because by making that change the Church would be admitting that Infant Baptism may be invalid, which is untrue. It’s something that’s been practiced by the Church since the time of the Apostles, although it has been hotly debated since the ECF. This canon reaffirms that it most certainly is valid, so questioning it’s validity is heretical. Questioning its validity, at all, is what’s being anathematized, here.

Thank you.

Again, just my own simple logic and experience. I’m completely uneducated, and certainly not an expert in Canon Law, but I can read that old style of English. (I use the Douay-Rheims Bible, so it’s very familiar.) I have also read a fair amount about these kinds of debates over Church policy in the past. I’ve read about the what many of the ECFs have said about Baptism. IMHO, this canon is only addressing the validity of Infant Baptism, and denying that there is any need for “those thus Baptized” as babies to be required to renew their vows, because it would be foolish to do so. That’s why I do not believe there is any other purpose involved, because none are mentioned. Apostasy most certainly is not mentioned. If it had anything to do with it, it would have been. Inferring that it is related, is putting words in the Council’s mouth.

Sorry, that was meant as a general ‘you’, not a specific ‘you’. It was meant to be hypothetical.

I would agree that the last statement is correct, because it says both parts of the proposition are being anathematized. The ‘doubters’ of the validity of Infant Baptism are proposing that the Church should ask the question, and, that She should punish ‘dissenters’ by barring them from receiving the sacraments until ‘they repent’. That’s why the entire proposition is being anathematized by the Council. It states that anyone who persists in believing that the Church should do such a thing, is subject to excommunication as a heretic.

I agree. Your responses have not been abrasive or condescending, while some ‘others’ certainly have been. I was just venting my general frustration to the wrong person.

Again, all of the proposed penalties were those suggested by the ‘doubters’ within the Church, that wanted Her to make a change. Their whole proposition was declared to be heretical by this canon, including the proposed penalties.

I hope I have, by now. They were certainly the ones that influenced the ‘doubters’ within the Church to ask for this proposed change. But, this canon was not directed to what anyone outside the Catholic Church did. It was a direct response to people within the Church that expressed doubt in the validity of Infant Baptism.

That’s the point. It addresses the concerns of ‘doubters’ within the Church, by clearly stating that the Church will not change her policy on Infant Baptism.

:bowdown2::bowdown2::bowdown2:

 

[AbideWithMe]

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).

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—I think the canon has to be directed against Erasmus’ proposal, rather than Anabaptists or Ottomans. If this link works, please scroll down to take a look at the entry A new ecclesiastical history:… from 1699. The second paragraph on page 336 in that book uses the exact language, in positive form, of Canon 14. www.google.com/#q=erasmus+renew+baptismal+vows

 

[Mystophilus]

Sorry, that was meant as a general ‘you’, not a specific ‘you’. It was meant to be hypothetical.

Oh, I see.

Dear English language,
Please, bring back the difference between second person singular and second person plural. Everybody else has one. We used to have one. Bring it back.

The ‘doubters’ of the validity of Infant Baptism are proposing that the Church should ask the question, and, that She should punish ‘dissenters’ by barring them from receiving the sacraments until ‘they repent’.

We are actually mostly in agreement here: the people whom you are describing as “doubters” are the “Catholic clergy, laity, and secular rulers” whom I mentioned earlier. The difference is that you have been focusing on the relationships within Catholicism alone, whereas I have been talking about relationships between Catholics in response to what non-Catholics were doing.

There are still a couple of issues to cover, however. You mention the doubters proposing that the Church should ask the baptized, which is certainly possible, but we don’t have any evidence of that proposal. On the other hand, we do have evidence of the Anabaptists and the Muslims asking the baptized.

Think about this in terms of the Catholic prince of a small country, including a considerable number of Protestants, some of whom are Anabaptists. The Anabaptists claim that child baptism is invalid, that adults should be asked for their own views, and are therefore asking. Think also of a Catholic priest in Hungary, in an area recently occupied by the Ottomans, who are now taking baptized Catholic children and turning them into Muslim soldiers. This is where the issue of potential apostasy comes in: not for the prince or the priest, but for the child. The prince or priest needs to know how to respond to that. The prince’s being too heavy-handed could bring civil war (this was precisely the argument used in France about ratifying the decrees of Trent at the end of the century). The priest’s being too outspoken could bring the execution or expulsion of the Catholic clergy in the region.

Either the prince or the priest could ask the Church, as you speculate, or the Council could notice the rather-widespread situation and proactively issue the decree.

The decree, however, does not merely say that the Church should punish the dissenters by barring them from the sacraments. That would be pointless: if they have already said, “No, I don’t care about my sponsors’ baptismal promises,” they have already separated themselves from the Church and the sacraments. Instead, the decree anathematizes the person who claims that the dissenters should not be punished by agents unspecified with penalties unspecified in addition to exclusion from the Eucharist (“If any one saith, that …] they are to be left to their own will; and are not to be compelled meanwhile to a Christian life by any other penalty”).

Trent firmly tells the prince and the priest that action must be taken to keep the grown-up “in the Christian life”. The curious part is that it fails to set any limits on the methods of compulsion to be employed.

 

[Mystophilus]

Mystophilus—I think the canon has to be directed against Erasmus’ proposal, rather than Anabaptists or Ottomans. If this link works, please scroll down to take a look at the entry A new ecclesiastical history:… from 1699. The second paragraph on page 336 in that book uses the exact language, in positive form, of Canon 14. www.google.com/#q=erasmus+renew+baptismal+vows

Ah, thank you for the link. I agree with you that his proposal “if they [the previously-baptized] could not be prevailed with to adhere to it [their faith], it would perhaps be expedient not to force them, nor to impose any Punishment upon them, except depriving them of the Eucharist” is indeed the idea to which Trent is anathematizing (apparently from Erasmus’ “Dedication to the Pious Reader” of his Paraphrase on Matthew). However, Erasmus had been dead for ten years when the canon was decreed, but the Anabaptists were significantly influenced by him, as were Luther and Zwingli, apparently: it seems this idea spread rather rapidly, making it a serious concern for the Council. In that case, it is thus Erasmus *and *the Anabaptists (and others) who followed him.

All of this does make the Ottoman connection seem less likely, unfortunately. Perhaps, they just did not yet know about what was happening, even that close to them.

 

[Mystophilus]

We have the answer to the origin of the canon, and also quite possibly to the penalties.

To summarise, Desiderius Erasmus wrote in his prefatory letter to his Paraphrase on Matthew that children ought to be asked, when they had grown up, whether they adhered to the baptismal promises made for them. In the same book, he wrote that, if they said, “No,” no other penalty should be applied to compel them apart from denying them the sacraments.

His ideas became popular with the Anabaptists and other Protestants.

Twenty years later (and a decade after Erasmus’ death), the Council of Trent explicitly condemned the reiteration of these particular ideas, seeking to expunge them from Catholicism.

This also explains the canon’s ambiguity regarding the “other penalties”, because that is how vaguely *Erasmus *had expressed it: the *canon *did not specify further because he had not specified further, and it was directly addressing his formulation.

The terrible results of that vaguery in cases like Louis XIV’s brutalising and slaughtering of the Huguenots were not in Trent’s view at all.

 

[Telstar]

Oh, I see.

Dear English language,
Please, bring back the difference between second person singular and second person plural. Everybody else has one. We used to have one. Bring it back.

Amen! I was thinking along those same lines, partly due to another thread on the CAF that was discussing the same subject about older Bible translations, like the Douay-Rheims.

We are actually mostly in agreement here: the people whom you are describing as “doubters” are the “Catholic clergy, laity, and secular rulers” whom I mentioned earlier. The difference is that you have been focusing on the relationships within Catholicism alone, whereas I have been talking about relationships between Catholics in response to what non-Catholics were doing.

I would agree to the “doubters” being as you describe them, except I would not necessarily include “secular rulers”. Personally, I really don’t think mentioning them is necessary, at all. Their secular position is not germane to this canon, in any way. I believe the Council was specifically addressing ‘doubting’ Catholics that wanted the Church to make a change. It was their erroneous opinion of the efficacy of Infant Baptism that was being corrected by the Council.

As I said in my last post, whatever was going on outside the Church was only relevant insofar as it caused the errors in Catholic thinking of that time, such as questioning the validity of Infant Baptism. Some of those Catholics may only have wanted the change to be made as a means of quieting those outside the Church, that were giving them grief about the Church Baptizing babies. However, the Church can’t just change Her laws or practices to satisfy the whims of people, either inside, or outside of the Church. She has to continue to clearly and firmly teach the revealed truths of salvation, as Jesus commanded. If there was any theological problem with Baptizing babies, the Church wouldn’t be doing it. The graces and blessings infused on those babies through Baptism, are necessary for their salvation. She can’t just stop doing it to make people that may have doubts feel more comfortable about it.

There are still a couple of issues to cover, however. You mention the doubters proposing that the Church should ask the baptized, which is certainly possible, but we don’t have any evidence of that proposal. On the other hand, we do have evidence of the Anabaptists and the Muslims asking the baptized.

Actually, the link that AbideWithMe provided is about Erasmus, who was calling for a change that fits what the canon addresses, almost perfectly. It clearly shows that it was, in fact, people inside the Church that were seeking some kind of change in practice as a response to accusations made against Infant Baptism.

Also, this is from New Advent on Baptism:“The Council of Trent solemnly defines the doctrine of infant baptism (Sess. VII, can. xiii). It also condemns (can. xiv) the opinion of Erasmus that those who had been baptized in infancy, should be left free to ratify or reject the baptismal promises after they had become adult.”
The effects of Baptism cannot be reversed or abandoned, so asking someone to ratify or reject those promises is a useless endeavor. Once you’ve received the *indelible mark of Christ *on your soul (through Baptism), you will always belong to Him. That doesn’t mean that you can’t leave the Catholic Church, it just means that you are still considered to be a member of the Body of Christ. The only penalty that the Church imposes on those who leave is that you cannot receive the sacraments without going to confession. That really shouldn’t be a problem for anyone that doesn’t believe in the Church, anyway. Right? (If you are formally excommunicated, I think there is a little more to it than just going to confession, but I’m not sure about that.) But, you will always be welcomed back with open arms, if you ever change your mind and want to return.

Think about this …

Your scenarios only relate to things that “might have occurred” outside the Church. They are not really relevant to this canon. People are free to leave the Church, if that’s what they want to do. God gave us free will. We have a right to choose our own path. The Church would certainly prefer that no one would ever leave, because She is the surest way to salvation, but the truth is, even Jesus had followers leave Him, even though they had been with Him for a long time. Some of them were appalled when He told them that He was the Bread of Life, and unless they ate His Body and drank His Blood, they would not have life in them. That same kind of thing has continued to happen, for many different reasons, for the past 2000 years. Some people will always find something that they just can’t accept, or believe, and will choose to walk away from Jesus and His Church, to find their own way. Hopefully, they won’t completely abandon Jesus as His disciples did, but some people do. It’s sad.

 

[Telstar]

We have the answer to the origin of the canon, and also quite possibly to the penalties.

To summarise, Desiderius Erasmus wrote in his prefatory letter to his Paraphrase on Matthew that children ought to be asked, when they had grown up, whether they adhered to the baptismal promises made for them. In the same book, he wrote that, if they said, “No,” no other penalty should be applied to compel them apart from denying them the sacraments.

His ideas became popular with the Anabaptists and other Protestants.

Twenty years later (and a decade after Erasmus’ death), the Council of Trent explicitly condemned the reiteration of these particular ideas, seeking to expunge them from Catholicism.

This also explains the canon’s ambiguity regarding the “other penalties”, because that is how vaguely *Erasmus *had expressed it: the *canon *did not specify further because he had not specified further, and it was directly addressing his formulation.

The terrible results of that vaguery in cases like Louis XIV’s brutalising and slaughtering of the Huguenots were not in Trent’s view at all.

Dang it! I just spent the last couple of hours carefully composing my last post (while watching TV), and now I see yours.

:crying: :crying: :crying:

I think I need some sleep. :yawn:

 

[Picky_Picky]

Oh, I see.

Dear English language,
Please, bring back the difference between second person singular and second person plural. Everybody else has one. We used to have one. Bring it back.

…

Poor old English language – she supplies us with an excellent generic pronoun (“one”) which works splendidly in most hypotheticals and avoids the use of generic “you”. What do we do? We just ignore it. And then we complain. Ingrates that we are.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Poor old English language – she supplies us with an excellent generic pronoun (“one”) which works splendidly in most hypotheticals and avoids the use of generic “you”. What do we do? We just ignore it. And then we complain. Ingrates that we are.

A big problem with the English language is that it is far from singular in nature these days. Being a ‘universal language’ it suffers the slings and arrows of outrageous liberties - it has been ‘burglarized’ -

 

[Contarini]

Ah, thank you for the link. I agree with you that his proposal “if they [the previously-baptized] could not be prevailed with to adhere to it [their faith], it would perhaps be expedient not to force them, nor to impose any Punishment upon them, except depriving them of the Eucharist” is indeed the idea to which Trent is anathematizing (apparently from Erasmus’ “Dedication to the Pious Reader” of his Paraphrase on Matthew). However, Erasmus had been dead for ten years when the canon was decreed, but the Anabaptists were significantly influenced by him, as were Luther and Zwingli, apparently: it seems this idea spread rather rapidly, making it a serious concern for the Council. In that case, it is thus Erasmus *and *the Anabaptists (and others) who followed him.

All of this does make the Ottoman connection seem less likely, unfortunately. Perhaps, they just did not yet know about what was happening, even that close to them.

I don’t think the Anabaptists are in view here. Again, the previous canon had already dealt with them.

The Council of Trent and the “Counter-Reformation” of the mid-sixteenth-century generally was still very much concerned with Erasmus’ legacy. Many of his books were put on the Index. Erasmus was the towering Catholic intellectual of the early sixteenth century, and as you say many people believed that he had influenced the Protestants profoundly. Clearly he did, but just as clearly confessional Protestantism was quite different from the kind of reform Erasmus was arguing for. One of the great tragedies of the sixteenth century, in my opinion, was the loss of Erasmus’ legacy on both sides. Anglicans perhaps preserved it best of anyone, which in 1998 was one of the arguments I used to persuade myself to become Episcopalian. (I read the first volume of Jedin’s History of the Council of Trent and said, “what I really want is to be a pre-Tridentine Catholic.”)

I don’t think Erasmus would have been at all at home in the Hutterite or Mennonite traditions, the two versions of Anabaptism that survived to the end of the 16th century. But certainly the young intellectuals like Grebel and Denck who spearheaded important elements of the early movement were deeply influenced by Erasmus.

Thanks anyway to AbideWithMe for turning up the specific reference. I knew Erasmus had said something like this, but didn’t remember where and didn’t realize how precisely his words match the Council’s condemnation.

Edwin

 

[Novocastrian]

One of the great tragedies of the sixteenth century, in my opinion, was the loss of Erasmus’ legacy on both sides. Anglicans perhaps preserved it best of anyone, which in 1998 was one of the arguments I used to persuade myself to become Episcopalian. (I read the first volume of Jedin’s History of the Council of Trent and said, “what I really want is to be a pre-Tridentine Catholic.”)

In this, your name betrays you. I’ve been dipping in and out of the Peter Matheson book recently; it’s good fun to read, but depressing to think about!

 

[Contarini]

This most certainly is Church teaching. It is a big, huge, major council. This is Trent. And at Trent, that particular Magisterium saw fit to throw their authority behind the idea that cradle Catholics don’t just get the choice to leave- compel them with penalties, do not let them freely choose to go, coerce them to stay in spite of what they would prefer to do.

This is the smoking gun. It is Trent. It is an anathema stated with Magisterial authority. As such, it is permanent. It cannot be unsaid, nor was it ever supposed to be.

So I have a few questions about this. Starting with: Why did that particular Magisterium see fit to guarantee grounds for a certain type of religious coercion? What was it so important to them? And continuing with: What does it say about the Catholic Church in the modern day, considering how no one knows about his particular anathema and everyone basically violates it whenever someone close to them chooses to leave the Catholic Church?

A personal question for all of you, if I may. I assume you know some cradle Catholics who wound up leaving the Church at least for a time, yes? Did you ever, ever, ever in your life considering compelling them to stay through the use of some penalty or punishment? Did it ever occur to you? And now that you know about this particular anathema- would you even remotely consider doing such a thing? I don’t know exactly what kind of penalty you might see fit to impose, but the upshot is that a cradle Catholic wants to leave the Church and you arrange something that forces them not to, despite the fact that they would like to.

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

Looking back at this OP, I realize that I’ve been so caught up in discussing the historical meaning that I never addressed the last part of the post. And that justifies, in part at least, the posters who have been insisting that history doesn’t matter. I apologize to Reuben and Telstar insofar as I didn’t clearly recognize that the OP was claiming that this canon was still binding on Catholics and that Catholics today were somehow obligated to coerce.

I know of course that that isn’t true. And I agree with Reuben and Telstar in the sense that no matter what the historical context was, the canon is not binding on Catholics today in any sense that would oblige them to persecute.

I do think that it’s quite a puzzle for Catholics to reconcile this canon with current teaching, and the knots into which Reuben and Telstar have tied themselves trying to do it bear witness to that.

But this is only an issue insofar as we prospective converts are expected to accept that the Church’s teaching is unchanging, particularly on issues such as women’s ordination.

It seems to me that this canon posed as much of a problem for Catholics accepting full religious liberty as Ordinatio Sacerdotalis does for Catholics accepting women’s ordination.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

In this, your name betrays you. I’ve been dipping in and out of the Peter Matheson book recently; it’s good fun to read, but depressing to think about!

Yes, I read a lot of Contarini that same semester, and that was when I started using the alias, I think.

Edwin

 

[eddie_too]

if you are not speaking under the authority of the RC magisterium, exactly whose authority are you speaking under?

 

[Contarini]

if you are not speaking under the authority of the RC magisterium, exactly whose authority are you speaking under?

Why does one have to “speak under” some authority? Can you explain the premises that lead you to put things that way?

And of course, if you choose to “speak under” a particular authority, you must have chosen to do so on some basis logically prior to accepting that authority. So your premises lead to infinite regress and are self-refuting.

Edwin