The Catholic Church and religious coercion- the smoking gun 2

[eddie_too]

Jesus gave authority to the magisterium of the RCC. those who speak under the magisterium speak with the authority of Jesus.

I did not mean to imply that a person cannot speak under their own authority.

I would just ask who is more likely to know what they are speaking about, an individual who has rejected the authority of Jesus or those who strive to speak under that Divinely established authority.?

 

[badnewsbarrett]

I have one more key link to share with everyone, this is from NewAdvent and it confirms the link between this canon and Erasmus.

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

The key portion is this: “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.”

I’m going to say a couple of things about Erasmus very quickly. He was a reformer, but he was vastly more faithful to Catholic authority than the Protestant reformers, and while they hoped he would side with them, he did not do so and he personally remained faithful to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. (Even if the Church did not treat him quite as well as it should have).

One very interesting thing about Erasmus is that he was the son of a Catholic priest. Read that over a couple of times and wrap your mind around it, that statement is accurate. Yes it was a scandal, no it’s not supposed to happen but it did happen and it was a bit of an awkward childhood for him. Erasmus grew up with the best kinds of parochial schooling though, he dipped his toe into the monastic life but decided not to spend his life there. He came away from the monastic experience somehow thinking that how one personally believes is of great importance, although this did not undermine his belief in the efficacy of the sacraments, and this was somehow lost on some of his critics. They couldn’t wrap their minds around the concept. That was their problem.

Erasmus went on to become a priest. One of the main features of his writing and teaching had to do with downtalking those who went to war for religious reasons, specifically reasons that involved killing people who believe the wrong thing and coercing them to believe the right thing. Erasmus upheld the idea that the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of truth, but he did not have much respect for people who went to war in order to force it on people. He wound up having a lot of his books burned for saying such things, but his ideas survived and have been credited as much as anything else with being the foundation of religious liberties as they are historically expressed in the United States. He was well ahead of his time, and in many areas he had some very good ideas that others were not inclined to listen to, although they should have.

Erasmus spent over 90% of his time addressing social issues, the only time he addressed any sort of doctrinal issue was when Martin Luther goaded him into addressing free will and predestination. That’s the only exception I know of. One issue that he wanted to address was the sorry state of catechesis in the Catholic Church during his lifetime, and by the way, he spent substantial portions of his life living all over Europe, he really did spend significant time in just about every place that the Catholic Church was. And guess what, everywhere he went, the catechesis was awful. The goal of this idea he put forward was to vastly improve the catechesis of young Catholics entering adulthood, in a way that is really pretty similar to how catechesis is handled now. Just remember, at the time catechesis was universally awful. There was some criticism to the effect that support for good catechesis somehow undermines the efficacy of infant baptism, but the predictable and rather effective retort is that a well catechized person is that much more well positioned to articulate and defend the efficacy of infant baptism, and also, infant baptism is required whereas this catechesis thing is the result of hard work that if fairly voluntary, and the result of being well catechized is essentially its own reward so how exactly does that undermine Catholic teaching on the sacraments when all you’re doing is choosing to understand that teaching very well…?

At any rate, it is worth pointing out that this was an anathema leveled at a fairly brilliant Catholic reformer rather than a formal heretic, and it’s awfully easy to argue that there is no actual basis for anathemizing the thing being anathemized. Additionally, careful reading of the canon shows that it is opposed to religious liberty when dealing with baptized Catholics who might could fall away, the Catholic Encyclopedia makes it abundantly clear that this is about Erasmus, and the main thing at issue is the religious freedom of adult Catholics making adult decisions.

 

[benhur]

Did read what Erasmus and Zwingli wrote. Thank you. It seems infant baptism did occur in early church but was not the norm. Part of the problem here (Trent) is maybe is due to the church calling water baptism as effectual.

I always found it odd for the early centuries of the church to develop a “catechumen”, even build churches into two separate sections, one for baptized, the other for catechumen. What is odd is catechumen are always referred to as "believers’’ but “unbaptized”. Is there such a thing ? Can you really believe without a rebirth ? Did the apostles baptize anyone not believing ? Can the flesh have something good in him to believe on his own, before regeneration ? Do we not then turn baptism into a “righteous work” that Paul refers to as not saving ?

In scripture, if you had saving faith, believed, been born of the spirit, born again, you then and only then were baptized, and almost immediately. it was a thing of the heart, spirit, not so much the mind (being able to describe the full abc’s of the Spirit you have just come to know). A babe in Christ is a babe in Christ.

Again it seems it took many centuries for infant baptism to be the norm, as evidenced again by church buildings and architecture now making “one” section for the entire body. And now you have the same old problem that OT Jews had, you had two classes of Jews, those circumcised in the heart and those not. Now it’s those really born again and those not, all within our churches, partly due to religious rites and trusting in them, save Christ alone.

 

[benjohnson]

That’s the only exception I know of. One issue that he wanted to address was the sorry state of catechesis in the Catholic Church during his lifetime, and by the way, he spent substantial portions of his life living all over Europe, he really did spend significant time in just about every place that the Catholic Church was. And guess what, everywhere he went, the catechesis was awful. The goal of this idea he put forward was to vastly improve the catechesis of young Catholics entering adulthood, in a way that is really pretty similar to how catechesis is handled now.

Lutheran and Melanchthon went on the same adventure and found the training that priests received was absolutely abysmal - with sermons about dragons, witches at al, and a poor understand of Latin and subsequently the Law and Gospel.

They developed the Large and Small Catachism in response.

It’s why later on, that Luther claimed that his only written contributions to consider were the Large and Small Catechism and the Bondage of the Will. He considered everything else (including the 95 thesis) as rubbish (and wished them devoured or destroyed) compared to these three books.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I always found it odd for the early centuries of the church to develop a “catechumen”, even build churches into two separate sections, one for baptized, the other for catechumen. What is odd is catechumen are always referred to as "believers’’ but “unbaptized”. Is there such a thing ? Can you really believe without a rebirth ?

Yes, prior to physical baptism there is baptism of desire, which must be fulfilled in water unless unable by war or chaos.

Did the apostles baptize anyone not believing ?

Entire families were baptized, children and babies included. Perhaps there were none, “not believing”, but there were definitely those who were promised to be raised within the family’s faith.

Can the flesh have something good in him to believe on his own, before regeneration ?

One need not divide the process into before and after, it is a process of divinization/theosis.

Do we not then turn baptism into a “righteous work” that Paul refers to as not saving ?

How so?

In scripture, if you had saving faith, believed, been born of the spirit, born again, you then and only then were baptized, and almost immediately. it was a thing of the heart, spirit, not so much the mind (being able to describe the full abc’s of the Spirit you have just come to know). A babe in Christ is a babe in Christ.

Not according to the practices of the earliest Christians, some were catechized for years before baptism - in Greek speaking areas, average about 3-5 years. Some waited until before death.

Again it seems it took many centuries for infant baptism to be the norm, as evidenced again by church buildings and architecture now making “one” section for the entire body.

Not sure how current church architecture plays into understanding infant baptism within an underground faith.

And now you have the same old problem that OT Jews had, you had two classes of Jews, those circumcised in the heart and those not.

You will always have those who believe, and those who play the part. Sometimes, the same person may do either at different stages in their life.

Now it’s those really born again and those not, all within our churches, partly due to religious rites and trusting in them, save Christ alone.

Christ is the reason for our Sacraments, trusting that they are efficacious is trusting in Christ. Going along with it, unbelieving and just trusting the ritual is magical thinking, not sacramental/spiritual.

 

[Contarini]

Jesus gave authority to the magisterium of the RCC. those who speak under the magisterium speak with the authority of Jesus.

I did not mean to imply that a person cannot speak under their own authority.

I would just ask who is more likely to know what they are speaking about, an individual who has rejected the authority of Jesus or those who strive to speak under that Divinely established authority.?

Petitio principii.

We all strive to speak under that divinely established authority.

But the canon presently under discussion is evidence that official-sounding things have emanated from official channels in the Roman Communion which were not, in fact, spoken by Christ’s authority and later have had to be modified or walked back in some way. The condemnation of Quesnel for saying that laypeople should read the Scriptures even though they are difficult, or of Luther for saying that the Holy Spirit didn’t want heretics burned, are other examples.

I am not here trying to start an argument about infallibility. I can accept infallibility within carefully defined parameters–parameters that do not require one either to accept statements like the three I mentioned above or to come up with convoluted explanations of their meaning that make no historical sense. The point I’m making is that from the standpoint of the Christian seeking to live under Christ’s authority, uncritical acceptance of official hierarchical statements would not, at any given time, be a foolproof or even a generally advisable approach.

Edwin

 

[MarkInOregon]

As some of you may have noticed, I have spent a bit of time, here and there, exploring matters pertaining to religious coercion and the Catholic Church. And now here is a thread in which I will explore the smoking gun. First, here is the smoking gun.

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

Getting back to the smoking gun, though. From the Council of Trent, Session 7, On the Sacraments. Here’s one link that lets you see the whole thing. thecounciloftrent.com/ch7.htm
It begins with descriptions of the sacraments in general; our smoking gun is found in the portion that deals specifically with baptism. To begin with a little bit of context, let’s look at the Canon just previous to the smoking gun.

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. 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. 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.

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?

Is this a teaching on faith or morals–that is not subject to change or is it a canon regarding practice or discipline–that is subject to change? Perhaps your smoking gun isn’t as damaging as you think?

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Contarini]

Erasmus spent over 90% of his time addressing social issues, the only time he addressed any sort of doctrinal issue was when Martin Luther goaded him into addressing free will and predestination. That’s the only exception I know of.

It’s the only case I can think of where he addressed an entire treatise to a specific doctrinal issue.

He addressed doctrinal issues all the time, in one way or the other. One can’t write about Christian stuff without doing that.

But certainly he downplayed the importance of detailed doctrinal statements and focused on moral issues and on the importance of imitating Jesus.

One issue that he wanted to address was the sorry state of catechesis in the Catholic Church during his lifetime, and by the way, he spent substantial portions of his life living all over Europe, he really did spend significant time in just about every place that the Catholic Church was.

Overstated. Mostly Netherlands, France, England, and Italy. But yes, he did get around.

And guess what, everywhere he went, the catechesis was awful. The goal of this idea he put forward was to vastly improve the catechesis of young Catholics entering adulthood, in a way that is really pretty similar to how catechesis is handled now. Just remember, at the time catechesis was universally awful.

Maybe overstated, and of course “awful” by Erasmus’ standards might not be “awful” by the standards of someone with different priorities.

Eamon Duffy, for instance, has argued for a pretty good knowledge of the faith among laypeople in England. His methods and conclusions are not uncontested, to be sure. I believe that Janssen made a pretty detailed survey of pre-Reformation German piety more than a century ago and came up with some quite positive conclusions. Of course he was biased (essentially doing Catholic apologetics), and his scholarship is very old, but I know of no detailed refutation. (One problem is that many of his primary sources were destroyed in the two World Wars, I believe, so it’s hard to check up on him.)

There was some criticism to the effect that support for good catechesis somehow undermines the efficacy of infant baptism,

I don’t know of any such criticism. The criticism (and this is reflected in the Tridentine canon under discussion) would be that if you say that a person isn’t truly a Christian until they are well catechized and truly live out the Christian life (which is the tone of many of Erasmus’ writings), that implicitly denies the validity of infant baptism. But that’s not the same thing as saying that good catechesis isn’t important.

At any rate, it is worth pointing out that this was an anathema leveled at a fairly brilliant Catholic reformer rather than a formal heretic, and it’s awfully easy to argue that there is no actual basis for anathemizing the thing being anathemized. Additionally, careful reading of the canon shows that it is opposed to religious liberty when dealing with baptized Catholics who might could fall away, the Catholic Encyclopedia makes it abundantly clear that this is about Erasmus, and the main thing at issue is the religious freedom of adult Catholics making adult decisions.

Or to put it a bit differently, taking into account the valid points made by Reuben and Telstar: the main thing at issue is the binding nature of infant baptism. That, for the Fathers of Trent as for their medieval predecessors, means that those baptized as infants have no freedom to walk away from their baptism.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Is this a teaching on faith or morals–that is not subject to change or is it a canon regarding practice or discipline–that is subject to change? Perhaps your smoking gun isn’t as damaging as you think?

The peace of Christ,
Mark

I have no problem with your defining it ex post facto as the latter.

But the point remains that if you were a sixteenth-century Catholic and wanted to be faithful to what the Church today would recognize as the true teaching of Christ, you would at the very least dissent quietly and respectfully from this canon. Also, it’s not at all clear to me that it would have seemed like a purely disciplinary canon at the time. It’s clearly rooted in a doctrinal position about the validity of infant baptism (this is the correct point that Telstar has been making).

Edwin

 

[Mystophilus]

Thank you for the interesting conversation: Erasmus is not someone whom I had read before.

 

[Contarini]

Did read what Erasmus and Zwingli wrote. Thank you. It seems infant baptism did occur in early church but was not the norm.

It may actually have declined for a while because of fears about postbaptismal sin. It’s hard to be sure.

Part of the problem here (Trent) is maybe is due to the church calling water baptism as effectual.

Well, that’s an ancient and universal teaching of the Church solidly rooted in the New Testament, so I don’t see it as a problem:shrug:. Of course, orthodox Christians don’t divide the Sacrament as you are implicitly doing by speaking of “water baptism” on its own.

I always found it odd for the early centuries of the church to develop a “catechumen”, even build churches into two separate sections, one for baptized, the other for catechumen. What is odd is catechumen are always referred to as "believers’’

Actually no. Quite often the term “believers” or “faithful” (both terms translate the same Greek and Latin terms–“pistoi” or “fideles” respectively) was used in contrast with the catechumens. That’s why the two parts of the Mass were called “the Liturgy of the Catechumens” and “the Liturgy of the Believers.”

Now you may have instances where catechumens are called believers. But I’d like to see them.

"but “unbaptized”. Is there such a thing ? Can you really believe without a rebirth ?

Depending on the sense of “believe,” I think.

Did the apostles baptize anyone not believing ?

No adult. Whether they baptized infants or not is unclear. And of course, the point of the catechumenate was to ensure that no non-believers were baptized, so you seem to be arguing in opposite directions.

Can the flesh have something good in him to believe on his own, before regeneration ?

Prevenient grace.

The idea that regeneration logically precedes faith is a Reformed peculiarity driven by the logic of the Reformed system rather than by any Biblical or traditional support that I can see.

Do we not then turn baptism into a “righteous work” that Paul refers to as not saving ?

Again, your arguments seem to be pushing in opposite directions to me. The Catholic position does not make baptism a righteous work, particularly not in the case of infants. I am always flabbergasted by why that isn’t obvious. Infants can’t do works. In Catholic theology, baptism regenerates. If you object to this, you are objecting because you want a more works-based understanding of regeneration, not less.

In scripture, if you had saving faith, believed, been born of the spirit, born again, you then and only then were baptized, and almost immediately. it was a thing of the heart, spirit, not so much the mind (being able to describe the full abc’s of the Spirit you have just come to know). A babe in Christ is a babe in Christ.

I think your heart/mind dichotomy is un-Biblical.

And while certainly baptism seems to have followed profession of faith pretty quickly in the NT (perhaps for practical reasons in a situation where the missionary might have to move on and might not be back for a while, or perhaps in part because most converts were Jews or God-fearers and were already catechized to a great extent), you are begging the question in identifying regeneration with faith as opposed to baptism.

Again, your arguments push in two directions. The immediacy of baptism is an argument for the fact that the NT authors regarded repentance, faith, and baptism as an indivisible whole. It’s an argument for baptismal regeneration, not against it.

Again it seems it took many centuries for infant baptism to be the norm, as evidenced again by church buildings and architecture now making “one” section for the entire body. And now you have the same old problem that OT Jews had, you had two classes of Jews, those circumcised in the heart and those not. Now it’s those really born again and those not, all within our churches, partly due to religious rites and trusting in them, save Christ alone.

It’s more due to cultural circumstances, I think. Whenever Christianity is culturally the norm, you will have this situation

There are plenty of Baptists in the South who have been baptized “as believers” (though admittedly often as fairly young children) but live pretty nominal lives.

Edwin

 

[Robert_in_SD]

As some of you may have noticed, I have spent a bit of time, here and there, exploring matters pertaining to religious coercion and the Catholic Church. And now here is a thread in which I will explore the smoking gun. First, here is the smoking gun.

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

Getting back to the smoking gun, though. From the Council of Trent, Session 7, On the Sacraments. Here’s one link that lets you see the whole thing. thecounciloftrent.com/ch7.htm
It begins with descriptions of the sacraments in general; our smoking gun is found in the portion that deals specifically with baptism. To begin with a little bit of context, let’s look at the Canon just previous to the smoking gun.

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. 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. 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.

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?

Other than excluding a person from the sacraments, what other coercive steps can the Catholic Church of 2015 take in response to someone’s decision to leave? I can’t think of any? So, what makes the discussion relevant?

When these ideas were formulated at Trent, the government of nations was intertwined with religion at a fundamental level. Heresy was considered by the reigning monarch as a form of treason on both sides of the reformation. Now, other than restricting a person’s access to the sacraments until they make the personal decision to repent, I don’t think the Church has any coercive power over individuals.

Looks like a lot of “smoke” here, but no real gun.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Contarini]

Thank you for the interesting conversation: Erasmus is not someone whom I had read before.

He needs to be better known.

Part of the problem is that his attraction is largely his style. He wrote beautiful Latin and expressed himself with great nuance in that language, but in translation much of what he says often seems trite. And in a way that triteness is a virtue. That is one way in which he was like the Anabaptists. He was more interested in getting people to follow Jesus than in coming up with original or exciting ideas. (To be fair, the Reformers didn’t want to be original either. But Luther, at least, really couldn’t help it. And the Protestants did think that fairly complex, nuanced doctrinal distinctions were vitally important to the Christian life.)

Erasmus has “dated” a great deal, because so much of what he says seems obvious today and addresses, with complexity and indirection and irony and sometimes maybe something less than perfect straightforwardness, the social issues of his day.

But he’s immensely important and has become much more popular in Catholicism after Vatican II.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Other than excluding a person from the sacraments, what other coercive steps can the Catholic Church of 2015 take in response to someone’s decision to leave? I can’t think of any? So, what makes the discussion relevant?

When these ideas were formulated at Trent, the government of nations was intertwined with religion at a fundamental level. Heresy was considered by the reigning monarch as a form of treason on both sides of the reformation. Now, other than restricting a person’s access to the sacraments until they make the personal decision to repent, I don’t think the Church has any coercive power over individuals.

Looks like a lot of “smoke” here, but no real gun.

Peace,
Robert

Depends on what the OP means.

It’s a smoking gun if the question is whether the Catholic Church formally endorsed coercion. Of course, there are other smoking guns, and people explain them away too:shrug:

Edwin

 

[MarkInOregon]

I have no problem with your defining it ex post facto as the latter.

But the point remains that if you were a sixteenth-century Catholic and wanted to be faithful to what the Church today would recognize as the true teaching of Christ, you would at the very least dissent quietly and respectfully from this canon. Also, it’s not at all clear to me that it would have seemed like a purely disciplinary canon at the time. It’s clearly rooted in a doctrinal position about the validity of infant baptism (this is the correct point that Telstar has been making).

Edwin

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

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Telstar]

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.

Apology accepted.

First of all, I just want to make it clear that this canon is still binding on the subject of the validity of Infant Baptism, in regards to whether or not anyone should be required by the Church, to ratify their ‘vows’ (which, technically, aren’t actually vows in the proper sense of the term) when they have grown up. What we have to remember is that it’s really an “anti-canon”, because it condemns as heretical, any proposal along this line of thinking, that questions whether Infant Baptism in the Catholic Church is valid or not.

But, the OP’s insistence that coercion is necessary, is due to a general misunderstanding of the subject and purpose of the canon. The subject is Infant Baptism, regarding whether those Baptized as infants should be required*** by the Church***, to ratify their Baptismal vows when they become adults. The punishments are only mentioned as being conditional on two things:

1. on them being asked by the Church to ratify their vows
2. ***if they refuse to ratify ***those vows
   Both of those conditions must be met for any penalties to apply. So, if the Church refuses to even ask them the question, then any and all penalties or punishments that were proposed as being conditional on their refusal, automatically become a moot point.

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.

My tying myself in ‘knots’ was due to the great effort that was required to convince people that this “anti-canon” is actually about whether or not there is a need for anyone to be asked, by the Church, to ratify their vows of Baptism when they become adults. Many times, I just wanted to throw my hands up and walk away, but I knew it was too important to just let it go. (I do think my poor guardian angel had to tie me in knots to contain my frustration, and tie my tongue. )

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

The Doctrines and Dogmas of the Church cannot change. They can only be clarified or better defined by the Magisterium, in order to make them easier to understand (they seem to have missed that mark, here), or to shed new light on a deeper meaning. Once something is officially declared to be Doctrine by the Church, it remains Doctrine, forever.

The ordination of women will never happen, because it has officially been declared that Priests must be men. Pope Paul VI and Pope St. John Paul II (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis) have both written official documents addressing the subject. It is Sacred Tradition that Priests have always been men, since Jesus chose the 12 Apostles. I’m a woman and I have absolutely no problem with it, whatsoever. In fact, I would have a very serious problem with women being allowed to be priests. IMHO, no woman could ever stand “in persona Christi” to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Certain policies and practices can change. There are many differences in practice within the various branches of the Catholic Church (in full communion with the Pope). Those practices are not doctrinal, they are traditions (with a lower case “t”) that have developed over the years amongst those different branches, or even among local parishes. But, the Doctrines and Dogmas they hold as true are always the same, in all of them.

 

[benhur]

Yes, prior to physical baptism there is baptism of desire, which must be fulfilled in water unless unable by war or chaos.

Yes I understand the CC teaching. Thank you.

Of course we are “drawn” by the Father to the Son . Of course that is grace. I think we label things and discern the beginnings of new life differently still. Only new life can have a proper Godly desire. And that gladly. Before that we are like wild stallions (who by the way follow and need a leader horse) and God chases us down from behind and lasssos us as we fight and run in the opposite direction, not willing to conform to this new leader. The stallion must be broken first before he will allow you to bridle him.

I am saying that when the horse is broken and he has made the decision to follow this new leader, he has a new heart, will, and life.Then the horse allows the bridle, the acting out of this new life, a symbol if you will of that new heart.

To me I see CC definition as stating this new life is not their until the bridling. It is like you are taking the *evidence *of new life and calling it causitive of that new life.

One need not divide the process into before and after, it is a process of divinization/theosis.

But we all do this, and it can be succinct as defining our first birth at conception.

How so?

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;” Titus

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some see water baptism as the washing others see it as an inner Holy Spirit washing before any physical water. I think Paul is simply saying Christ saves you mercifully and not by a righteous work of water baptism.(though it is evidence of a merciful work).

Not according to the practices of the earliest Christians, some were catechized for years before baptism - in Greek speaking areas, average about 3-5 years. Some waited until before death.

I said “in scripture”. You say in practice and that after apostolic times.

Not sure how current church architecture plays into understanding infant baptism within an underground faith.

Of course my remarks date themselves as to when the buildings were erected,. mostly after Constantine. Infant baptism was not as prevalent during underground phase as compared to afterwards.

You will always have those who believe, and those who play the part. Sometimes, the same person may do either at different stages in their life.

Yes and no.No if you mean mortal sin making you “unborn” so to speak.

Christ is the reason for our Sacraments, trusting that they are efficacious is trusting in Christ.

Is it ? It can be a fine line. The OT Jews trusted in God given ordinances also. Bottom line is in Christ alone.

Going along with it, unbelieving and just trusting the ritual is magical thinking, not sacramental/spiritual.

Well they do believe, in Christ’s ritual. The think they believe, and obey properly.

 

[Duane1966]

Of course my remarks date themselves as to when the buildings were erected,. mostly after Constantine. Infant baptism was not as prevalent during underground phase as compared to afterwards.

What is your source for the above statement? The following is taken from this website:shamelesspopery.com/the-case-for-infant-baptism/

Part I

.*Biblical Silence

The first major argument GotQuestions raises is that “The Bible does not record any infants being baptized.” Instead, “In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized – as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him (Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-4).”This is a weak argument from silence. Spelled out, it would go something like this:We don’t know of any infants who were baptized in the Bible;Therefore, there were no infants baptized by the Apostles;Therefore, the Church must have forbidden baptism to infants.But there’s no way to jump from (1) to (2), or from (2) to (3). To seewhythis argument fails, replaceinfantswithteenagers. After all, we don’t know of anyteenagerswho were baptized in the Bible, either. Sure, we know of entire households baptized (Acts 16:15, Acts 18:8), but we don’t know whether those households included infants or teenagers.So the Bible is equally silent on teenager baptism as infant baptism. But nobody jumps from that silence (1) to claiming that teeanger baptism didn’t occur (2), or is forbidden (3). It would be absurd to make those logical leaps.The argument from silence is particularly unconvincing in the face of two further facts: (a) there’s no prohibition against infant baptism, and (b) the Biblical silence is easily explained.For (a), consider that the Bible doesn’t say youcan’tbaptize infants. So the argument from silence cuts both ways. In fact, we’re told to baptize everyone (Matthew 29:19), so the lack of any special instructions for infants seems to argueforinfant baptism rather than against it.For (b), we know why the Bible doesn’t talk about infant baptism. At the time, almost all of the new Christians were converts: almost nobody was born a Christian, because Christianity was too new. The Book of Acts focuses on the Apostles’ conversion of their Jewish and pagan neighbors. It’s not until late in the Apostolic age that we start to meet Christians like St. Timothy, who come from Christian families (2 Timothy 1:5).*

 

[Duane1966]

Part I

Baptism is how we are brought into the Church, the Kingdom of God. This is, I hope, a relatively uncontroversial point, and we see it in Acts 2:41-42:
*
“So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.*And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” *

That is, they were “added” to the Church because they were baptized. (This passage is sometimes cited as “proof” against infant Baptism: I’ll address that aspect further in the Conclusion). Likewise, Paul says that* “by one Spirit we were all baptized Into one body, Jews or Greeks, slaves or free”* (1 Cor. 12:13). We also hear this proclaimed directly by Jesus Christ in John 3:5,“Amen, amen, I say to you,no one can enter the kingdom of God without beingborn of water and Spirit.”So, if Baptism is how we’re added to the Church, we’re faced with an oddity: if infant Baptism is forbidden, then there’s no such thing as Christian babies. There are Jewish babies and Muslim babies and all sorts of other babies, but not Christian babies. Infants and small children aren’t allowed into the Kingdom of God, because they’re not old enough to make a profession of faith. Now consider that oddity in light of Luke 18:15-17,Nowthey were bringing even infants to himthat he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”In the parallel account, Mark adds that Jesus“took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands upon them” (Mark 10:16), the action tied to sending the Holy Spirit upon them (Acts 8:18; Acts 9:17).These children, even infants, being brought to Jesus are so small that they are being carried there. And Christ is blessing them and saying that the Kingdom belongs to them. Notice how strikingly different Christ’s approach is to that of the Baptists. While the Baptists act as if faith is something that we have to mature into and work towards, Christ treats it as the opposite: little children are naturally trusting; they live by faith, because they’re too weak to do otherwise. To close the doors of the Church to these children – to prevent them from being Christians during these, their most formative years – does them a terrible disservice.B.Baptism is the New CircumcisionAs the means of entrance into the People of God, Baptism replaces circumcision. St. Paul uses this imagery to describe Baptism in Colossians 2:11-12:In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.This “circumcision of Christ” is Baptism,Yet circumcision occurred on the eighth day after birth (Leviticus 12:3). It was only in the case of converts that circumcision was delayed. Of course, circumcision preceded faith for these Jewish boys. But that was part of the point: they were brought upas Jews. Likewise, when we baptize children, we promise to bring them upas Christians.This is part of a parent’s responsibility to his or her child. Kids don’t know right from wrong, and they learn these things first from their parents. This means that parents have both the right and the duty to raise their children in the true faith. This is reflected nicely in Joshua’s proclamation (Joshua 24:14-15):Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness; put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River, and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. And if you be unwilling to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but*as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.This was true of Old Testament Judaism, and it’s true of New Testament Christianity. Infant Baptism acknowledges the obvious: children tend to believe whatever their parents teach them about God, at least at first. You don’t see a lot of devout Christians with atheistic or skeptical four year-olds. Those children born into Christian families should be raised to start from the perspective of faith.

 

[benhur]

Part I

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

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