The Catholic Church and religious coercion- the smoking gun 2

[joe371]

No, because Paul isn’t physically doing anything to them.

Unless you are arguing that since he’s an apostle his curse automatically damns them somehow. Which I don’t believe.

I mean, you can curse me to hell all day long and that won’t coerce me to do anything. Granted, you’re not Paul

Edwin

What is the specific punishment spelled out by Trent i.e. where someone has ordered that something be physically done, as a punishment? My only point: If it upsets you that the CC uses coercive language then it should equally upset you that Paul does too - that’s all.

 

[Contarini]

What is the specific punishment spelled out by Trent i.e. where someone has ordered that something be physically done, as a punishment? My only point: If it upsets you that the CC uses coercive language then it should equally upset you that Paul does too - that’s all.

“Anathema” is traditionally seen as excommunicating language. We can’t be sure that that’s what Paul meant–he may just have been calling down God’s curse on the people. But hell actually isn’t mentioned in the Greek, for what that’s worth.

What you don’t seem to be get–because you have an overly free translation–is that this is the same term Trent uses against people who don’t coerce heretics.

So you can’t possibly say that Paul is “more coercive” than Trent. Trent uses the Pauline term, “let him be anathema,” over and over again in the canons.

That’s the starting point. But Trent goes further and calls for civil penalties.

If you really think that civil penalties aren’t “going further,” then I guess you couldn’t object to ISIS beheading you, could you? After all, they already think you are going to hell, and according to you that’s worse.

The logical fallacy, of course, is that actually sending someone to hell would be worse, but verbal cursing (unless you think it has the power to send someone straight to hell) isn’t.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Accursed rather than hell? OK. “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”

We agree that these are words of coercion, spoken by Paul?

If they’re just a curse, then they aren’t coercion. The person can just say “nuts to you” and walk away.

Trent specifically says that depriving someone of the Sacraments isn’t enough. Spiritual penalties aren’t enough. And Trent uses the same term as Paul–anathema–for those who say they are.

You’re right that it doesn’t say any specific penalty. We should be grateful for small mercies. Small because at the time Catholic governments (and many Protestant ones too) did customarily execute heretics.

Edwin

 

[joe371]

If they’re just a curse, then they aren’t coercion. The person can just say “nuts to you” and walk away.

Trent specifically says that depriving someone of the Sacraments isn’t enough. Spiritual penalties aren’t enough. And Trent uses the same term as Paul–anathema–for those who say they are.

Edwin

OK, so what are the specific punishments, that are in fact enough, spelled out by Trent?

Coercion as everyone knows, is defined as the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. You do not believe the following to be coercive, at all. OK.

“I’m now telling you again what we’ve told you in the past: If anyone tells you good news that is different from the Good News you received, (in other words someone not belonging to the church that Paul belonged to) that person should be accursed.” Galatians

 

[joe371]

If they’re just a curse, then they aren’t coercion. The person can just say “nuts to you” and walk away.

Trent specifically says that depriving someone of the Sacraments isn’t enough. Spiritual penalties aren’t enough. And Trent uses the same term as Paul–anathema–for those who say they are.

You’re right that it doesn’t say any specific penalty. We should be grateful for small mercies. Small because at the time Catholic governments (and many Protestant ones too) did customarily execute heretics.

Edwin

By the way being under a curse seems pretty bad to me i.e. Paul’s words would have scared me…

 

[Contarini]

OK, so what are the specific punishments, that are in fact enough, spelled out by Trent?

Didn’t you see the post where I said that it doesn’t say that?

We know that the standard punishment for impenitent heretics was death. But there were lesser ones: public penance, imprisonment, fines, etc.

Trent leaves that up to discretion. Another poster made the point that technically it doesn’t say that it’s wrong to stop with spiritual penalties, only that you can’t say that further penalties shouldn’t be imposed. But it says, “if anyone says that they should be left to their own will.” I.e., exactly what the Church does to people who leave today. It says, “It’s your choice and we respect that.”

Edwin

 

[joe371]

You’re right that it doesn’t say any specific penalty. We should be grateful for small mercies. Small because at the time Catholic governments (and many Protestant ones too) did customarily execute heretics.
Edwin

No penalties stated, so no one can insist that Trent endorsed punishments - correct?

 

[joe371]

Didn’t you see the post where I said that it doesn’t say that?

We know that the standard punishment for impenitent heretics was death. But there were lesser ones: public penance, imprisonment, fines, etc.

Trent leaves that up to discretion. Another poster made the point that technically it doesn’t say that it’s wrong to stop with spiritual penalties, only that you can’t say that further penalties shouldn’t be imposed. But it says, “if anyone says that they should be left to their own will.” I.e., exactly what the Church does to people who leave today. It says, “It’s your choice and we respect that.”

Edwin

Sorry Edwin. I overlooked it, as I was interrupted.

 

[Telstar]

“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 think we’re all missing the real point of this canon. If we only read the parts that I emphasized (red/italics/bold), I think the real point of it is seen more easily. If I put it together on its own, it would look like this:

“If any one saith, that those who have been thus baptized when children, are to be asked whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their names when they were baptized, let him be anathema.”
I could be very wrong, but this canon actually seems to be saying that the faithful should not be asked if they would ratify those promises, at all. It’s no one’s place to question anyone’s faith. That is something that should be left between them and God. No one should interfere in any way, or question them, period. I think it falls under, “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”

Why the Church created this canon is because there seemed to be an overabundance of people questioning the Church’s practice of Baptizing babies at that time (oh wait… they still do!). This canon eliminates any debate within the Church about whether or not those Baptisms are valid, and states that no one has a right to demand that any member of the Church should be required to retake those same vows, when they grow up. So, the Church is really protecting Her members from being questioned about their faith, and not trying to find a way to punish them if they dare to have any doubts. JMHO

As Emily Litella would say, “That’s different. Nevermind!”

 

[joe371]

"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 think we’re all missing the real point of this canon. If we only read the parts that I emphasized (red/italics/bold), I think the real point of it is seen more easily. If I put it together on its own, it would look like this:
"If any one saith, that those who have been thus baptized when children, are to be asked whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their names when they were baptized, let him be anathema."I could be very wrong, but this canon actually seems to be saying that the faithful should not be asked if they would ratify those promises, at all. It’s no one’s place to question anyone’s faith. That is something that should be left between them and God. No one should interfere in any way, or question them, period. I think it falls under, “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”

Why the Church created this canon is because there seemed to be an overabundance of people questioning the Church’s practice of Baptizing babies at that time (oh wait… they still do!). This canon eliminates any debate within the Church about whether or not those Baptisms are valid, and states that no one has a right to demand that any member of the Church should be required to retake those same vows, when they grow up. So, the Church is really protecting Her members from being questioned about their faith, and not trying to find a way to punish them if they dare to have any doubts. JMHO

As Emily Litella would say, “That’s different. Nevermind!”

That seems like the right interpretation. They sure could have worded it in a less ambiguous way…

 

[St_Francis]

If they’re just a curse, then they aren’t coercion. The person can just say “nuts to you” and walk away.

The apostles and their spiritual descendants (bishops and priest) were given the power to bind and loose in confession–those whose sins were forgiven were forgiven. Those whose sins weren’t forgiven weren’t. If Paul was ordained by the time he wrote, then his words would have had a power behind them that my words, for example, would not.

Trent specifically says that depriving someone of the Sacraments isn’t enough. Spiritual penalties aren’t enough. And Trent uses the same term as Paul–anathema–for those who say they are.

Trent does not say that–it says that someone who says it ought not happen is anathematized.

From the Catholic Encyclopdia article on anathema:
At a late period, Gregory IX (1227-41), bk. V, tit. xxxix, ch. lix, Si quem, distinguishes minor excommunication, or that implying exclusion only from the sacraments, from major excommunication, implying exclusion from the society of the faithful. He declares that it is major excommunication which is meant in all texts in which mention is made of excommunication. Since that time there has been no difference between major excommunication and anathema, except the greater or less degree of ceremony in pronouncing the sentence of excommunication.

As we can see, by the time of Trent, there were different levels of excommunication, the *least *of which was exclusion from the sacraments. And the Council of Trent is saying that thise who say that only the least penalty should be imposed and that anything more would be too much, are wrong, to the point that they are teaching against the teachings of the Church.

However, this is not, per se, *coercion, *since presumably the apostate doesn’t care, no? I mean, if one si leaving a church, why should they care what the church says about them?

(I would also like to point out that later in the article, it is pointed out that any level of penalty can be resolved by the repentance of the apostate.)

You’re right that it doesn’t say any specific penalty. We should be grateful for small mercies. Small because at the time Catholic governments (and many Protestant ones too) did customarily execute heretics.

The reason heretics were executed by the state is that they were publically attempting to get people to apostasize and thus lose their souls. It wasn’t simply quietly and privately disagreeing with Church teachings that got someone executed.

In the same way, apostates were sometimes in a position that required a more forceful reaction to their action.

Edwin

 

[Telstar]

That seems like the right interpretation. They sure could have worded it in a less ambiguous way…

After reading it over and over again, it dawned on me that the whole thing was meant to put an end to the debate over the validity of Baptizing babies. All of the rest of the references, as to how one would proceed if someone dared to refuse to retake those vows, were irrelevant to the main point. That being, that they shouldn’t even be asked in the first place. It seems very logical to me, anyway. But, I ain’t no theologian.

 

[St_Francis]

“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 think we’re all missing the real point of this canon. If we only read the parts that I emphasized (red/italics/bold), I think the real point of it is seen more easily. If I put it together on its own, it would look like this:

“If any one saith, that those who have been thus baptized when children, are to be asked whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their names when they were baptized, let him be anathema.”
I could be very wrong, but this canon actually seems to be saying that the faithful should not be asked if they would ratify those promises, at all. It’s no one’s place to question anyone’s faith. That is something that should be left between them and God. No one should interfere in any way, or question them, period. I think it falls under, “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”

Why the Church created this canon is because there seemed to be an overabundance of people questioning the Church’s practice of Baptizing babies at that time (oh wait… they still do!). This canon eliminates any debate within the Church about whether or not those Baptisms are valid, and states that no one has a right to demand that any member of the Church should be required to retake those same vows, when they grow up. So, the Church is really protecting Her members from being questioned about their faith, and not trying to find a way to punish them if they dare to have any doubts. JMHO

As Emily Litella would say, “That’s different. Nevermind!”

Lori, you are brilliant!

 

[Telstar]

Lori, you are brilliant!

Awww…shucks

It really wasn’t me! I think I had an angel whispering in my ear on that one.

 

[St_Francis]

Awww…shucks

It really wasn’t me! I think I had an angel whispering in my ear on that one.

Ahhh, ok, you have a brilliant angel, and you’re very smart to listen to him

 

[joe371]

Ahhh, ok, you have a brilliant angel, and you’re very smart to listen to him

:clapping: After I read Telstar’s post, and read Trent again, I got it. I still say they could have worded it in a less ambiguous way…LOL…

 

[Telstar]

Ahhh, ok, you have a brilliant angel, and you’re very smart to listen to him

Yes, I do! It was like I was on a mission, to try and figure out what it really meant. Every now and then, I just have to buckle down and listen to him.

 

[Reuben_J]

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.

Well, you are wrong. Where is the coercion? It simply states that if baptized persons deny their sponsors’ baptismal promise, IOW, his baptism, them being children notwithstanding, they can do so, ‘to be left to their own will’. When they grow up where they do not confirm their baptismal faith (as promised by their sponsors), they can leave …

This means they are free to make their own decision as adults, to stay with the faith or leave it. They are not compelled (forced) to stay and NO penalty is imposed.

The only penalty is they are excluded from receiving the sacraments. For your information, receiving the Eucharist is only for practicing Catholics in a state of grace. That a person who denies his baptism should be excluded from the Eucharist, I think the penalty is absolutely minimal.

If you do not believe anymore, you are excommunicated and not to receive the sacraments (including the Eucharist) – what the big deal about that?

As if it’s not enough that infants are ushered into Catholic membership through the promise of their sponsors (and evidently that really was not enough for the Trent Magisterium), when cradle Catholics come of age, they shall not be left to their own free will.

I don’t know where you read that but there is no such thing. In fact to the contrary,*** they are to be left to their own will***. If they do not ratify their baptism, they are free to leave according to their will. There will be no penalty imposed on them except for — **they cannot receive the Holy Communion in the Eucharist and other sacraments. **

You might think their only penalty for abandoning the Church would be exclusions from the sacramental life of the Church, but no- they are to be compelled by other penalties as well, by no means shall you just allow them to leave like that, you must get behind the idea that you should compel such a person with penalties other than a basic lack of membership. And if you don’t support that you are anathema.

Nonsense! What penalties? They are anathemanized (excommunicated) as they do not believe in the faith. It is the same everywhere, if you do not believe the teaching of your church, you would leave.

Actually in the Catholic Church, FYI, an excommunicated person may not necessarily be damned. It is just that he cannot receive the sacraments but he is free to live a religious life and God will judge him on that.

Reuben

 

[Telstar]

:clapping: After I read Telstar’s post, and read Trent again, I got it. I still say they could have worded it in a less ambiguous way…LOL…

Well, considering when it was written, the English language was a lot more complicated back then. I think it helped that I usually read the Douay-Rheims Bible, so the language was a bit more familiar to me because of that. But, it still took me a while to boil it down to the nitty gritty. I just hope it clears it up a little bit better for everyone else.

 

[Reuben_J]

“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 think we’re all missing the real point of this canon. If we only read the parts that I emphasized (red/italics/bold), I think the real point of it is seen more easily. If I put it together on its own, it would look like this:

“If any one saith, that those who have been thus baptized when children, are to be asked whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their names when they were baptized, let him be anathema.”
I could be very wrong, but this canon actually seems to be saying that the faithful should not be asked if they would ratify those promises, at all. It’s no one’s place to question anyone’s faith. That is something that should be left between them and God. No one should interfere in any way, or question them, period. I think it falls under, “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”

I see it more like this:

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 see this is basically with regards to baptism, and that if we deny it as adults, meaning not believing in it anymore, we are free to leave the Church according to our will and there is no penalty for us except that we are not to receive the sacraments.

I think the OP is making out of something that is not there.

God bless.

Reuben