The Catholic Church and religious coercion- the smoking gun 2

[josie_L]

Telstar has, I believe, explained it in a way that has been torn to shreds repeatedly, and the closest thing to a proper citation that she’s offered has been an angel whispering in her ear.

Thing is, though, this isn’t exactly about your opinion or Telstar’s opinion or the opinion of her imaginary angel friend. It’s about what the Church anathemizes, and what the Church says about its own authority. I have given a citation, and despite how many times we’ve gone in circles, none of the Catholics here have touched it. I’ll run it past for a third time.

“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.”

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Council of Trent defines the doctrine of infant baptism (by way of a negative, in its anathemas) and then the condemnation of canon xiv has to do with Erasmus’ idea that those baptized in infancy should be left free to ratify or reject things without coercive penalty once they are adults. I am still waiting for Telstar (or those of a similar mindset) to talk about this, to read into the canon the same things as the Catholic Encyclopedia, or for goodness’ sake to cite something better than an angel in your ear. Come on, people.

Maybe you’re better off speaking to a canon lawyer.

 

[Contarini]

I think you are reading it out of context.

Why do you think this? It fits perfectly as far as I can see.

Luther doesn’t want freedom for adults, neither does Calvin or Zwingli nor Henry… they want their view promoted, any opposition quelled. Erasmus did not want requirements placed on adults because he didn’t want requirements placed on himself. He always preferred to keep moving and not attached to anything or anyone, including his allies.

That’s a cynical reading of Erasmus, shaped by confessional propaganda. Erasmus was loyal to an undivided Church when almost no one else was, and for that he got criticized as an indecisive turncoat. Quite the reverse. (Not that he wasn’t darn annoying.)

Edwin

 

[Z_Ninja]

I suppose I should just say, “well you got me and renounce my faith in the Catholic Church.”

One thing that needs to be considered also is that Baptism isn’t the only part of initiation into the Church. It also includes Confirmation and the Eucharist.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, from 1253 thru 1255, and I am summarizing here so don’t judge me, it states:
“Baptism is the sacrament of faith, But faith needs the community of believers…”
“For all baptized, children or adults, faith must grow after Baptism.”
“The whole ecclesial community bears some responsibility for the development and safeguarding of the grace given at Baptism.”
This is in Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 1.

Article 2 continues to explain Confirmation,
1319 - “A candidate for Confirmation who has attained the age of reason must profess the faith, be in the state of grace, have the intention of receiving the sacrament, and be prepared to assume the role of disciple and witness to Christ, both within the ecclesial community and in temporal affairs.”

Article 3 covers the Eucharist,
1415 - “Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance.”

So in a nutshell, I would say then that if coercion means that the whole community of the church must help the child, that has been baptized, grow in faith then I suppose you are right. But, confirmation allows that child, once they reach the age of reason (for me at the time I was 13 or 8th grade, when I was asked if I wanted to be confirmed and why I wanted to be confirmed) to state their intention if they want to be confirmed. So then their is no coercion with any kind of penalty whether it be denial of sacraments or being burned at the stake.

Baptism is not the end all be all Initiation into the Church and as explained in the CCC, it is the Catechumen that must declare his or her intention to be confirmed into the Church.

don’t know if that helps or is relevant to this thread, but it seems to me it is, IMHO.

 

[Z_Ninja]

I suppose I should just say, “well you got me and renounce my faith in the Catholic Church.”

One thing that needs to be considered also is that Baptism isn’t the only part of initiation into the Church. It also includes Confirmation and the Eucharist.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, from 1253 thru 1255, and I am summarizing here so don’t judge me, it states:
“Baptism is the sacrament of faith, But faith needs the community of believers…”
“For all baptized, children or adults, faith must grow after Baptism.”
“The whole ecclesial community bears some responsibility for the development and safeguarding of the grace given at Baptism.”
This is in Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 1.

Article 2 continues to explain Confirmation,
1319 - “A candidate for Confirmation who has attained the age of reason must profess the faith, be in the state of grace, have the intention of receiving the sacrament, and be prepared to assume the role of disciple and witness to Christ, both within the ecclesial community and in temporal affairs.”

Article 3 covers the Eucharist,
1415 - “Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance.”

So in a nutshell, I would say then that if coercion means that the whole community of the church must help the child, that has been baptized, grow in faith then I suppose you are right. But, confirmation allows that child, once they reach the age of reason (for me at the time I was 13 or 8th grade, when I was asked if I wanted to be confirmed and why I wanted to be confirmed) to state their intention if they want to be confirmed. So then there is no coercion with any kind of penalty whether it be denial of sacraments or being burned at the stake.

Baptism is not the end all be all Initiation into the Church and as explained in the CCC, it is the Catechumen that must declare his or her intention to be confirmed into the Church.

don’t know if that helps or is relevant to this thread, but it seems to me it is, IMHO.

oops, incorrect form of “there”.

 

[KathleenGee]

To renounce the fullness of Christ is sin…and a damning one at that.

The Church provides us the fullness of faith in Christ both in word, teaching, practice and most of all nourishment.

To know full well the deposit of faith, inspite of infant baptism that incorporates one into Christ’s body…and His Bride, the Church in the broadest sense, .and then to reject Him is indeed anathema and a most deadly sin.

 

[Telstar]

Telstar has, I believe, explained it in a way that has been torn to shreds repeatedly, and the closest thing to a proper citation that she’s offered has been an angel whispering in her ear.

Thing is, though, this isn’t exactly about your opinion or Telstar’s opinion or the opinion of her imaginary angel friend.

After reading these comments, I was determined never to respond to this thread, again. Nor, did I intend to ever respond to anything else you might post in the future. But, I decided that I really do need to respond to your remarks. I find your flippant attitude not only to be personally offensive and insulting to me, but your comments also belittle anyone else who might believe that they could actually be inspired by God, either through the help of an angel or the Holy Spirit, Himself, in order to understand spiritual matters, or anything else.

Personally, I don’t care what you think the correct interpretation of the canon is. It is still only your personal opinion. It doesn’t matter how many fancy degrees you might possess, that make you think you’re better qualified to understand it than I, or anyone else. I’ve already stated my own opinion of what it means, and I will stand by it until someone can show me that my interpretation of the whole canon is incorrect, according to the Catholic Church.

The excerpt from the very old Catholic Encyclopedia that you keep quoting, is somewhat vague. It doesn’t really go into any great detail about exactly how the canon addresses the Church’s concerns over what Erasmus taught, only that it does. I already addressed that part of the canon in my previous remarks. If that’s not good enough for you, or anyone else that disagrees with my personal opinion, then so be it. It is what it is.

 

[JesusPeaceLove]

I was shocked by all the comments because I didnt see what the big deal was and didnt even “see” the different extreme ways it has been read by different posters UNTIL I read through all the posts. Burning heretics? Really? That was the only sort of punishment the church could have had in mind besides barring sacraments? Those who insist on this have the burden of proof since its not in the text.

All I see when I look at the text is that it is not wrong if I, as an example, tell my teen that as long as he lives under my roof, he must attend mass on Sundays even if he says he’s not catholic any more. Or demand that he cannot blaspheme in my house even if he says doesn’t believe in God any more. The idea the church HAD to have been referring to prisons for not professing catholicism is ridiculous in the extreme. Conjecture. One can speculate all day that this is what the council fathers thought or not, but since this is not what they said, it is utterly dishonest to insist that they could not have meant something else. That only what these posters have in mind from history or “common sense” or some other idea is meant regardless of the fact that other interpretations also fit. Playing mind-reader and insisting my mind-reading HAS to be right seems extremely presumptuous. These posters must exclude the other interpretations in order to insist with integrity that only their reading is correct.

I can also understand Testar’s point in that the Church just condemned a popular idea that was being suggested based on disbelief that infant baptism is fully valid. However, I think she might miss the point that behind the second part is an assumption that some forms of penalties might be right, though nothing there binds the church to civil penalties for unbelief no matter how much one wants to insist on putting words there based on history. However, I do think her interpretation is also a valid one if the church was merely referring to a formular doing rounds in the church that we should “ask those baptized as infant if they STILL believe and if they say no let them go with no penalties besides banning them from sacraments”. At best, this would have lead to people experiencing only a temporal crisis of faith de-Christianizing based on some silly made-up anti-sacrament that was based on a false belief that infant baptism is a denial of human freedom and therefore people should be placed in a situation where they must exercise the real feedom. I can totally see the council then condemning the whole formular in its entirety. I dont see how this interpretation translates to “tying herself knots” like Contarini accuses telstar. It seems perfectly legitimate to me, though its not what I myself saw initially.

Either way, there is no basis for insisting that the only penalties beside sacraments is prison or death. And therefore since this kind of thing used to happen in the middle ages this must be the only meaning to be imposed on the text. I personally immediately thought of catholics in charge of other catholics coercing behaviour that conforms to chrstian morality, say in schools, at home and so forth. The church has a policy of firing people from jobs in church institutes for behaviour that does not conform to christian morality like supporting abortion or homosexual marriage. That is not just ex-communication, or barring sacraments, but it is also a penalty that does not involve civil authorities or prison. I find ludicrous to force the church to have been talking about the most extreme things if the church didn’t say so but merely rebuked a formula based in a falsehood.

Lastly as I understand the debate, its all about interpretation of a text. I just dont understand badnewsbarrett demanding evidence for one interpretation (Telstar) more than others. What is his own evidence for his own interpretation of this canon, for example?

 

[dronald]

I was shocked by all the comments because I didnt see what the big deal was and didnt even “see” the different extreme ways it has been read by different posters UNTIL I read through all the posts. Burning heretics? Really? That was the only sort of punishment the church could have had in mind besides barring sacraments? Those who insist on this have the burden of proof since its not in the text.

All I see when I look at the text is that it is not wrong if I, as an example, tell my teen that as long as he lives under my roof, he must attend mass on Sundays even if he says he’s not catholic any more. Or demand that he cannot blaspheme in my house even if he says doesn’t believe in God any more. The idea the church HAD to have been referring to prisons for not professing catholicism is ridiculous in the extreme. Conjecture. One can speculate all day that this is what the council fathers thought or not, but since this is not what they said, it is utterly dishonest to insist that they could not have meant something else. That only what these posters have in mind from history or “common sense” or some other idea is meant regardless of the fact that other interpretations also fit. Playing mind-reader and insisting my mind-reading HAS to be right seems extremely presumptuous. These posters must exclude the other interpretations in order to insist with integrity that only their reading is correct.

I can also understand Testar’s point in that the Church just condemned a popular idea that was being suggested based on disbelief that infant baptism is fully valid. However, I think she might miss the point that behind the second part is an assumption that some forms of penalties might be right, though nothing there binds the church to civil penalties for unbelief no matter how much one wants to insist on putting words there based on history. However, I do think her interpretation is also a valid one if the church was merely referring to a formular doing rounds in the church that we should “ask those baptized as infant if they STILL believe and if they say no let them go with no penalties besides banning them from sacraments”. At best, this would have lead to people experiencing only a temporal crisis of faith de-Christianizing based on some silly made-up anti-sacrament that was based on a false belief that infant baptism is a denial of human freedom and therefore people should be placed in a situation where they must exercise the real feedom. I can totally see the council then condemning the whole formular in its entirety. I dont see how this interpretation translates to “tying herself knots” like Contarini accuses telstar. It seems perfectly legitimate to me, though its not what I myself saw initially.

Either way, there is no basis for insisting that the only penalties beside sacraments is prison or death. And therefore since this kind of thing used to happen in the middle ages this must be the only meaning to be imposed on the text. I personally immediately thought of catholics in charge of other catholics coercing behaviour that conforms to chrstian morality, say in schools, at home and so forth. The church has a policy of firing people from jobs in church institutes for behaviour that does not conform to christian morality like supporting abortion or homosexual marriage. That is not just ex-communication, or barring sacraments, but it is also a penalty that does not involve civil authorities or prison. I find ludicrous to force the church to have been talking about the most extreme things if the church didn’t say so but merely rebuked a formula based in a falsehood.

Lastly as I understand the debate, its all about interpretation of a text. I just dont understand badnewsbarrett demanding evidence for one interpretation (Telstar) more than others. What is his own evidence for his own interpretation of this canon, for example?

Again I think it comes back to the context of its time and the documents available that laid out punishments for heresy, blasphemy, etc.

The Papal Bull against Luther number 33 says that burning heretics is not against the will of the Spirit. I also posted some of the harsh punishments in the Fourth Lateran Council.

I mean, I suppose we can take this specific Canon on its own while ignoring the proclamations before it, and the context of its time; pretend that this 16th Century Church was living in our 21st Century, but to me that’s sugar coating.

 

[KathleenGee]

How many heretics were actually burned at the stake?

I read that Jan Hus was…and you have to read his beliefs as well and compare them to your own sense of Christianity, whether you are Catholic or not.

He was burned at the stake…by a gathering of some bishops during the time of an anti pope, in other words, one who is not a true pope and thus does not legitimately hold the office of Peter. This event came out of the Council of Constance that did not represent the legitimate pope or all the bishops. When the lawful pope was duly placed in legitimate authority, he totally nullified the Council of Constance so it has no bearing on the life and history of the Church except a bad one.

I likewise did not like tone of this thread, and see this attitude by some other Christians all too often.

There is a perception that Christ was not able to start a visible Church with His apostles…that you cannot trust any churchman, and that what ever they do is the work of men and not the Holy Spirit working through them…and so you are better off with your bible and your interpretation.

 

[Novocastrian]

How many heretics were actually burned at the stake?

I read that Jan Hus was…and you have to read his beliefs as well and compare them to your own sense of Christianity, whether you are Catholic or not.

He was burned at the stake…by a gathering of some bishops during the time of an anti pope, in other words, one who is not a true pope and thus does not legitimately hold the office of Peter. This event came out of the Council of Constance that did not represent the legitimate pope or all the bishops. When the lawful pope was duly placed in legitimate authority, he totally nullified the Council of Constance so it has no bearing on the life and history of the Church except a bad one.

I likewise did not like tone of this thread, and see this attitude by some other Christians all too often.

There is a perception that Christ was not able to start a visible Church with His apostles…that you cannot trust any churchman, and that what ever they do is the work of men and not the Holy Spirit working through them…and so you are better off with your bible and your interpretation.

Although the Church repudiated conciliarism, the Council of Constance is recognised as the sixteenth oecumenical council of the Roman Catholic Church, and John Hus’s condemnation is endorsed by that Church.

 

[AbideWithMe]

I was shocked by all the comments because I didnt see what the big deal was and didnt even “see” the different extreme ways it has been read by different posters UNTIL I read through all the posts. Burning heretics? Really? That was the only sort of punishment the church could have had in mind besides barring sacraments? Those who insist on this have the burden of proof since its not in the text.

All I see when I look at the text is that it is not wrong if I, as an example, tell my teen that as long as he lives under my roof, he must attend mass on Sundays even if he says he’s not catholic any more. Or demand that he cannot blaspheme in my house even if he says doesn’t believe in God any more. The idea the church HAD to have been referring to prisons for not professing catholicism is ridiculous in the extreme. Conjecture. One can speculate all day that this is what the council fathers thought or not, but since this is not what they said, it is utterly dishonest to insist that they could not have meant something else. That only what these posters have in mind from history or “common sense” or some other idea is meant regardless of the fact that other interpretations also fit. Playing mind-reader and insisting my mind-reading HAS to be right seems extremely presumptuous. These posters must exclude the other interpretations in order to insist with integrity that only their reading is correct.

I can also understand Testar’s point in that the Church just condemned a popular idea that was being suggested based on disbelief that infant baptism is fully valid. However, I think she might miss the point that behind the second part is an assumption that some forms of penalties might be right, though nothing there binds the church to civil penalties for unbelief no matter how much one wants to insist on putting words there based on history. However, I do think her interpretation is also a valid one if the church was merely referring to a formular doing rounds in the church that we should “ask those baptized as infant if they STILL believe and if they say no let them go with no penalties besides banning them from sacraments”. At best, this would have lead to people experiencing only a temporal crisis of faith de-Christianizing based on some silly made-up anti-sacrament that was based on a false belief that infant baptism is a denial of human freedom and therefore people should be placed in a situation where they must exercise the real feedom. I can totally see the council then condemning the whole formular in its entirety. I dont see how this interpretation translates to “tying herself knots” like Contarini accuses telstar. It seems perfectly legitimate to me, though its not what I myself saw initially.

Either way, there is no basis for insisting that the only penalties beside sacraments is prison or death. And therefore since this kind of thing used to happen in the middle ages this must be the only meaning to be imposed on the text. I personally immediately thought of catholics in charge of other catholics coercing behaviour that conforms to chrstian morality, say in schools, at home and so forth. The church has a policy of firing people from jobs in church institutes for behaviour that does not conform to christian morality like supporting abortion or homosexual marriage. That is not just ex-communication, or barring sacraments, but it is also a penalty that does not involve civil authorities or prison. I find ludicrous to force the church to have been talking about the most extreme things if the church didn’t say so but merely rebuked a formula based in a falsehood.

Lastly as I understand the debate, its all about interpretation of a text. I just dont understand badnewsbarrett demanding evidence for one interpretation (Telstar) more than others. What is his own evidence for his own interpretation of this canon, for example?

JesusPeaceLove—Where did anyone on this thread insist that the only penalties had to be prison or death?

I do think badnewsbarrett was too rough towards Telstar in one post in particular, but the reason for expecting evidence from Telstar for her interpretation is that there’s very strong evidence for a different understanding of the canon. She admitted she had no evidence but her own logic. Meanwhile, the evidence --including statements from knowledgeable Catholic sources-- that this canon was addressing a two-part proposal from Erasmus has been given repeatedly.

 

[Picky_Picky]

How many heretics were actually burned at the stake?

…

First we should acknowledge that burning to death is by no means a uniquely Catholic penalty, it has been used throughout recorded history by various regimes for various crimes. Nor were Catholics the sole perpetrators of religious persecution, of course: there were many Catholic victims, too.

That said, I believe the number of people burned at the stake for heresy against Catholic beliefs are numbered in thousands. As an example, Protestants burned in England under the Tudors number probably around 300, while the number burned in England during the Middle Ages is not, I think, known.

 

[KathleenGee]

I read on the Council of Constance…it was abrogated by the rightful pope…and the anti pope also was against the execution of Jan Hus…it was done by a handful of British bishops…so the Church did not endorse.

The BBC came out on the correct view of the Inquisition. The spins and tall tales of the Catholic Church killing millions of people was actually fabricated by nationalistic Englishmen.

Now today we are reading in the news that Pope Francis called President Abbass an angel of peace…when the real wording was that he hoped Abbass would become an angel of peace…and the whole event was for purpose of helping religious minorities in the region…namely our Christian brethren who are under growing seige by quickly growing Muslim population as well as Israeli barriers being up in a certain area that threatens the Christians’ future.

I would like to see documents of the Church making it a practice of burning people at the stake. I know it was the temporal rulers of Spain and a Fr Torquemada, that caused the excesses of the Inquisition, but the fact is the Church did all it could to exonerate anyone accused. National Catholic identity was the concern after living 700 years under Muslim Moor invasion and plundering, as well as the enforcement of dhimmitude in Spain. We have not lived under that and we don’t know how such affects Christian Catholic believers.

Anyway…likewise with the tone, etc…I don’t want to participate anymore with such insinuations inherent in such threads. We see this attitude all the time and there are Christians out there that believe every twist and turn put out on Francis, our bishops, and church people by the secular media…and it is sad to see when our fellow Brethren likewise pick up the spin and pass on…

I am more inclined to pray for Christian unity than anything and such debates really don’t help either.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I read on the Council of Constance…it was abrogated by the rightful pope…and the anti pope also was against the execution of Jan Hus…it was done by a handful of British bishops…so the Church did not endorse.

The BBC came out on the correct view of the Inquisition. The spins and tall tales of the Catholic Church killing millions of people was actually fabricated by nationalistic Englishmen.

Now today we are reading in the news that Pope Francis called President Abbass an angel of peace…when the real wording was that he hoped Abbass would become an angel of peace…and the whole event was for purpose of helping religious minorities in the region…namely our Christian brethren who are under growing seige by quickly growing Muslim population as well as Israeli barriers being up in a certain area that threatens the Christians’ future.

I would like to see documents of the Church making it a practice of burning people at the stake. I know it was the temporal rulers of Spain and a Fr Torquemada, that caused the excesses of the Inquisition, but the fact is the Church did all it could to exonerate anyone accused. National Catholic identity was the concern after living 700 years under Muslim Moor invasion and plundering, as well as the enforcement of dhimmitude in Spain. We have not lived under that and we don’t know how such affects Christian Catholic believers.

Anyway…likewise with the tone, etc…I don’t want to participate anymore with such insinuations inherent in such threads. We see this attitude all the time and there are Christians out there that believe every twist and turn put out on Francis, our bishops, and church people by the secular media…and it is sad to see when our fellow Brethren likewise pick up the spin and pass on…

I am more inclined to pray for Christian unity than anything and such debates really don’t help either.

I’m afraid history is full of people doing nasty things to each other. It is always tempting to try to exonerate those with whom we are otherwise in sympathy (certainly I do that myself). It is not healthy, however, to lapse into denial. There is a long history of dissidents being persecuted by church authorities. Protestants did it, too.

You are quite right, however, to suggest that accusations one side against another are not useful. I believe Christians when they say we are all sinners. We have left undone those things which we ought to have done, And we have done those things which we ought not to have done, And there is no health in us.

 

[AbideWithMe]

I’m afraid history is full of people doing nasty things to each other. It is always tempting to try to exonerate those with whom we are otherwise in sympathy (certainly I do that myself). It is not healthy, however, to lapse into denial. There is a long history of dissidents being persecuted by church authorities. Protestants did it, too.

You are quite right, however, to suggest that accusations one side against another are not useful. I believe Christians when they say we are all sinners. We have left undone those things which we ought to have done, And we have done those things which we ought not to have done, And there is no health in us.

I don’t think anyone can argue against any part of this post!

 

[PeaceInChrist]

I was shocked by all the comments because I didnt see what the big deal was and didnt even “see” the different extreme ways it has been read by different posters UNTIL I read through all the posts. Burning heretics? Really? That was the only sort of punishment the church could have had in mind besides barring sacraments? Those who insist on this have the burden of proof since its not in the text.

All I see when I look at the text is that it is not wrong if I, as an example, tell my teen that as long as he lives under my roof, he must attend mass on Sundays even if he says he’s not catholic any more. Or demand that he cannot blaspheme in my house even if he says doesn’t believe in God any more. The idea the church HAD to have been referring to prisons for not professing catholicism is ridiculous in the extreme. Conjecture. One can speculate all day that this is what the council fathers thought or not, but since this is not what they said, it is utterly dishonest to insist that they could not have meant something else. That only what these posters have in mind from history or “common sense” or some other idea is meant regardless of the fact that other interpretations also fit. Playing mind-reader and insisting my mind-reading HAS to be right seems extremely presumptuous. These posters must exclude the other interpretations in order to insist with integrity that only their reading is correct.

I can also understand Testar’s point in that the Church just condemned a popular idea that was being suggested based on disbelief that infant baptism is fully valid. However, I think she might miss the point that behind the second part is an assumption that some forms of penalties might be right, though nothing there binds the church to civil penalties for unbelief no matter how much one wants to insist on putting words there based on history. However, I do think her interpretation is also a valid one if the church was merely referring to a formular doing rounds in the church that we should “ask those baptized as infant if they STILL believe and if they say no let them go with no penalties besides banning them from sacraments”. At best, this would have lead to people experiencing only a temporal crisis of faith de-Christianizing based on some silly made-up anti-sacrament that was based on a false belief that infant baptism is a denial of human freedom and therefore people should be placed in a situation where they must exercise the real feedom. I can totally see the council then condemning the whole formular in its entirety. I dont see how this interpretation translates to “tying herself knots” like Contarini accuses telstar. It seems perfectly legitimate to me, though its not what I myself saw initially.

Either way, there is no basis for insisting that the only penalties beside sacraments is prison or death. And therefore since this kind of thing used to happen in the middle ages this must be the only meaning to be imposed on the text. I personally immediately thought of catholics in charge of other catholics coercing behaviour that conforms to chrstian morality, say in schools, at home and so forth. The church has a policy of firing people from jobs in church institutes for behaviour that does not conform to christian morality like supporting abortion or homosexual marriage. That is not just ex-communication, or barring sacraments, but it is also a penalty that does not involve civil authorities or prison. I find ludicrous to force the church to have been talking about the most extreme things if the church didn’t say so but merely rebuked a formula based in a falsehood.

Lastly as I understand the debate, its all about interpretation of a text. I just dont understand badnewsbarrett demanding evidence for one interpretation (Telstar) more than others. What is his own evidence for his own interpretation of this canon, for example?

Good points! Good post

 

[Telstar]

I’m afraid history is full of people doing nasty things to each other. It is always tempting to try to exonerate those with whom we are otherwise in sympathy (certainly I do that myself). It is not healthy, however, to lapse into denial. There is a long history of dissidents being persecuted by church authorities. Protestants did it, too.

You are quite right, however, to suggest that accusations one side against another are not useful. I believe Christians when they say we are all sinners. We have left undone those things which we ought to have done, And we have done those things which we ought not to have done, And there is no health in us.

I don’t think anyone can argue against any part of this post!

Constantly dredging up the distant past, and looking for “smoking guns”, doesn’t do anything but perpetuate those same old evils that were done by both sides. It just causes those same hostilities to continue to fester and grow. At some point, we all need to let it go, and not allow the devil to do what he wants to do, which is to tear us even further apart. Jesus wanted us to all be one with Him, so why do we insist on keeping a wall of evil between us?

You’d think we’d all be smart enough by now, to see who’s really behind what’s happening, whenever we start to rehash this same old stuff, over, and over again. Maybe it’s because some people just love to cause friction, so they bring it up just to watch the sparks fly. Then, they just step back so they can watch everyone else crash and burn. But, who’s the one that’s really laughing the loudest at the rest of us? Who started this whole thing in the first place? I can tell you one thing. It wasn’t any of us.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Constantly dredging up the distant past, and looking for “smoking guns”, doesn’t do anything but perpetuate those same old evils that were done by both sides. It just causes those same hostilities to continue to fester and grow. At some point, we all need to let it go, and not allow the devil to do what he wants to do, which is to tear us even further apart. Jesus wanted us to all be one with Him, so why do we insist on keeping a wall of evil between us?

You’d think we’d all be smart enough by now, to see who’s really behind what’s happening, whenever we start to rehash this same old stuff, over, and over again. Maybe it’s because some people just love to cause friction, so they bring it up just to watch the sparks fly. Then, they just step back so they can watch everyone else crash and burn. But, who’s the one that’s really laughing the loudest at the rest of us? Who started this whole thing in the first place? I can tell you one thing. It wasn’t any of us.

Telstar, and Kathleen, too— If it was just a matter of Catholics wanting to be left in peace and privacy to practice Catholicism, with respect from others, then I’d agree with you. I would say to let the past rest and let us all simply focus on moving forward with forgiveness and humility, seeking more awareness of our own errors and more blindness to others’ possible faults.

But that’s not what Catholicism itself asks of us. It asks us to convert; and to believe everything the Catholic Church says we must believe, including that the Catholic Church has never taught erroneously. It asks us to leave our own religions and jump ship into Catholicism. That being the case, those of us whom you are hoping to convert have every reason, and every need, to ask uncomfortable, thorny questions and pursue well-informed answers. And you should not be surprised when you get that kind of scrutiny.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Telstar, and Kathleen, too— If it was just a matter of Catholics wanting to be left in peace and privacy to practice Catholicism, with respect from others, then I’d agree with you. I would say to let the past rest and let us all simply focus on moving forward with forgiveness and humility, seeking more awareness of our own errors and more blindness to others’ possible faults.

But that’s not what Catholicism itself asks of us. It asks us to convert; and to believe everything the Catholic Church says we must believe, including that the Catholic Church has never taught erroneously. It asks us to leave our own religions and jump ship into Catholicism. That being the case, those of us whom you are hoping to convert have every reason, and every need, to ask uncomfortable, thorny questions and pursue well-informed answers. And you should not be surprised when you get that kind of scrutiny.

The Church claims that what is taught as dogma is infallible. What is taught authoritatively at one time may later change.

As to this canon, Jesus Peace Love made very good points: we have no idea what the possible repercussions were, as they are in no way implied. They could have very well been the losing of job or office within the Church, or exclusion from Church specific community. We have no idea, and to declare otherwise is intellectually dishonest. Even when it comes to heretics being burned, leaders among heretics were the ones put to death, and by the state at that. Protestant countries, like England, put every Catholic discovered to death at times.

Also, I posted on the subject a thought that no one acknowledged: that, like the disciplines from Acts 15 (not to eat blood, strangled animals, meat sacrificed to idols), it was an imposition for the time, applicable to that time period in its disciplinary purpose. Almost no Christians follow the precepts of the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, and that draws no qualms, but for some reason this one does.

There are so many logical errors happening on both sides of this argument, from simply denying the canon says what it says, to drawing unwarranted conclusions. It needs to stop.

 

[dronald]

The Church claims that what is taught as dogma is infallible. What is taught authoritatively at one time may later change.

As to this canon, Jesus Peace Love made very good points: we have no idea what the possible repercussions were, as they are in no way implied. They could have very well been the losing of job or office within the Church, or exclusion from Church specific community. We have no idea, and to declare otherwise is intellectually dishonest. Even when it comes to heretics being burned, leaders among heretics were the ones put to death, and by the state at that. Protestant countries, like England, put every Catholic discovered to death at times.

Also, I posted on the subject a thought that no one acknowledged: that, like the disciplines from Acts 15 (not to eat blood, strangled animals, meat sacrificed to idols), it was an imposition for the time, applicable to that time period in its disciplinary purpose. Almost no Christians follow the precepts of the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, and that draws no qualms, but for some reason this one does.

There are so many logical errors happening on both sides of this argument, from simply denying the canon says what it says, to drawing unwarranted conclusions. It needs to stop.

You don’t think that considering the time that the CC was most likely referring to the harsh punishments in documents like the Fourth Lateran Council and Papal Bull against Luther #33?