The Catholic Church and religious coercion- the smoking gun 2

[Picky_Picky]

OK. I just reread the canon. I guess what I said in my post above is EXACTLY what would make me anathema to the church! So I’m thinking I need to understand why this teaching needs to be spelled out for us. I think it means we are not to question someone’s faith but accept their infant baptism as valid and must encourage them to partake of the sacraments for their own spiritual growth. But I still don’t see coercion.

Yes, I suppose it depends on how strong ones reading of “coercion” is. I think those who use it are relying on the compulsion and other penalties taken together, plus a knowledge of the extremes to which action against heretics — in this case an apostate — could be taken.

 

[PRmerger]

This is the canon as shown in The Catholic Encyclopedia, on the New Advent website. This translation is a little better than the “old English version” that most people here have been using, because it’s from a more modern time period. (I think it’s from the early 20th century.) All of the canons in this particular section concern erroneous beliefs regarding Baptism, that were causing doubts or conflicts about the Church’s teachings.

This is the main proposal in question, which begins with, “If anyone says:”
“Those baptized as infants are to be asked when they have grown up, whether they wish to ratify what their sponsors had promised for them at their baptism,”
This proposal is found to be heretical because it questions the efficacy of Infant Baptism, by suggesting that something else needs to be done to confirm that its still valid in adults. The Church is affirming that any Baptism performed by the Church, or by anyone using the proper formula, is valid forever. It cannot be “undone”, or “redone”. Nor does anyone have to justify their Baptism to anyone that might question them when they “grow up”. The Church gives special instruction to the parents, and to the sponsors, before Baptizing any infant, that they are responsible for teaching the Faith to the child as it gets older.
Sponsors

"When infants are solemnly baptized, persons assist at the ceremony to make profession of the faith in the child’s name. This practice comes from antiquity and is witnessed to by Tertullian, St. Basil, St. Augustine, and others. Such persons are designated sponsores, offerentes, susceptores, fidejussores, and patrini. The English term is godfather and godmother, or in Anglo-Saxon, gossip.

These sponsors, in default of the child’s parents, are obliged to instruct it concerning faith and morals."This is what eliminates any need to ask someone to ‘ratify’ those vows. It’s up to the parents and godparents to do what they promised the Church to do, which is to instruct them in the Faith of the Church. When they grow up, it’s their own responsibility and choice as to whether they’ll follow them, or not. But, those vows are always valid in the eyes of God.

Then, we get to the second part:
"and if they reply that they do not wish to do so, they are to be left to their own will in the matter and not to be forced by penalties to lead a Christian life, except to be deprived of the reception of the Eucharist and of the other sacraments, until they reform."and it ends with, “Let him be anathema.”

IMHO, this second part of the canon is conditional on the first part, because if we cannot ‘question’ someone’s Baptismal vows, then the second half is already nullified. I now believe that it was included because it ties in with what Erasmus taught, therefore the Council wanted to kill two birds with one canon (pun intended) in case there was any doubt as to whether that part was included or not. But, since so many people here are insisting that there had to be another reason for it to be included, then I suppose I could offer something in the way of an explanation, even though I really don’t think it’s necessary.

First of all, the Church is a society of believers that has a hierarchical structure to govern it. As such, it has full authority to require its membership to follow a certain system of rules, just like any other public association or church has their own rules that they require to be followed by their members. The Church may have been adding the emphasis that she reserves the right to deal with any infraction of those rules as she sees fit, according to her own laws (subject to any civil laws that may apply). She does not give her authority to any individual member, outside of those that receive it through the sacrament of Holy Orders. But, even they have a higher authority over them. This canon might be clarifying her position on that point.

We also have to remember that the Church’s main responsibility (given to her by Jesus Christ) is to safeguard the salvation of the souls of her members. That’s why she has to take things like this so seriously.

Yeah.

What Lori said.

 

[ericc]

The Picky reasoning is not cause and effect. The anathema is cause effect. Offending, wrong words (“wrong things” as you say) cause the effect of anathemizingPicky is right to see the inferences of all the anthemas, Why do they anathemize free will and barring from sacraments ? Why didn’t the canon just anathemize questioning ones infant baptism, instead of also anathemizing free will and a conditional excommunication for one denying their baptismal faith ?

Many of the canons anathematized something. I have no problem with that. But it is another to infer guilt because of language used in other canons to the current canon. Either this particular canon is guilty of coercion by the words it employ or not, not by the words employed elsewhere. This is called inference. Picky transferred the meaning and usage of words used elsewhere assuming that it must apply to canon too. But guilt must be actual, not inferred. Unless you don’t believe in innocence till proven guilty. You then assume guilt by association.

At the risk of repeating, in another post I gave the example of a church member, say your son/daughter/relative /god child wanting to give up the baptismal vows and wanting to join a Satanic sect, would you say it is ok and just refrain from the sacraments? Don’t you want to counsel this person? Being non-expert counselor, won’t you want to get the best counselor that you can think of to dissuade this person? Or you believe that this person should be free to do what he/she feels like doing and you believe a hands off approach is best for this lost sheep? Shouldn’t the Shepard look for his lost sheep? Luke 15:4-7. If you believe the Shepard should do nothing, then our bible and yours are different by a wider margin than previously thought.

As Catholics we believe that Christ is in the Eucharist. If one who is going to give up on his baptism vows and no longer believe in the Eucharist and/or no longer reject Satan, this person MUST be denied this sacrament. It is not as simple as not eating a communal meal for us Catholics. This non-believer will be profaning Christ. We have to stop this sacrilege. Profaning the Eucharist is an auto-excommunicable act. You make it as a nonchalant issue. But I don’t expect non-Catholics to understand.

We believe in the communion of saints. Those sick and weakened deserve our help and attention, not to be put on the ignore list and left to their own devices. Do you do that in your Church if anyone gets on to that list?

Yes, the cause and effect. No, the canons would be written to say," if anyone says you can speak to the press, and if you do and you release sensitive information, you should only be terminated. “, let him be anathema”. The releasing of info and *firing only *are both anathemized. Why is it fallacious to think that the spirit of the canon is to stop info leaking with penalties beyond firing (sued, loss of pension etc) ?
Except that this canon not only wants to stop “wrong information” but wrong penalties. The canon does not like wrong cause *and *effects

The speaking to the press is only an example of regulation. It is not an example of canon language. One can get fired because of disobedience to the boss/company, not necessarily about the contents of the leak. It says a lot about that employee, whether he understands simple instructions, whether he is a team player, whether he obeys SOP.

This canon is an example of regulation. It didn’t state any theology or doctrine.

You have privileged information about this canon regarding wrong information, wrong penalties or wrong cause? Unless you have good information from the Church on this, you are just guessing. But why are you interested in regulations regulating behavior of Catholics? You have no vested interest in how we govern ourselves. The Church has been practicing excommunication since day 1. There is no doctrine that affects Protestantism here.

Again, the only way around this is to say the canon meant it was wrong to deny the sacraments to one who denies the faith of their baptism (or as in your scenario that the info leaker should not be fired).

The canon didn’t say that. The canon only states that “anyone who says bla bla bla” will be anathematized. The canon didn’t say use force to compel behavior. The language didn’t say it. Period. This is not a “it should be meaning this” scenario. When you start using words like the “spirit” of the canon, it really means nothing because we do not know what was the spirit like in the 16th century. We were not there, I don’t have minutes of the meeting detailing what the spirit was like, what the atmosphere was, what information was on the table under consideration, what the stakeholders were considering important or not, whether these canons were for future anticipation of scenarios etc.

Some here believe just because the Church quotes someone saying something, it must mean she is for or against it. But this mindset is unwarranted. It is not grounds to determine guilt.

Since there is so much uncertainty about the language used, perhaps someone who knows of Latin or an old English language expert can shed some light into what the words do mean.

What do Reformer Fathers say out of interest?

 

[Telstar]

Telstar, I agree the syntax is complicated, because of all the embedded clauses and the nesting of implied and actual conditionals. I don’t question your assessment of the first part (though I am not sure on what grounds you call it the main part, since a more natural reading is to find the ultimate result of all the conditionals as the main part, but never mind).

I agree the second part is conditional on the first, that it cannot come into play unless the first condition is fulfilled. In fact it is not only conditional, but is found later in time, so yes.

The rule with conditionals is that all parts of the conditional clause must be fulfilled for the consequential clause to apply. I am sure you are right, that the council would have considered the first part heretical in itself. I am sure that, the first part being fulfilled, the council considered the second part heretical. What the canon definitely says is that the two parts taken together are heretical. Do we agree?

Yes, we do agree on that, Picky. It certainly is a complicated mess to try and come to a definite conclusion on how it all fits together. I’ve tried to search for a Catholic source that goes into detail about what the general consensus of it was at the time, or even since that time, but I haven’t had much luck. All I can find is the list of canons, with no details about how they should be interpreted. Most of the other canons seem to be pretty straight forward, but this one is a mess. I have to think that they were trying to include the wording that Erasmus used in his writings to be clear that his whole idea was heretical, including the so called ‘punishments’ that he proposed.

However, I don’t believe that any of it addresses anything other than the validity of Infant Baptism. That’s why it’s listed in this section, which is only addressing heresies related to Baptism. It also ties to the previous canon as if it were a continuation of the same theme, because the original translation says, “those who have been thus baptized”. That previous canon clearly addresses the practice of baptizing infants, which was being called into question by the Anabaptists and others (including some Catholics) of that time period. I think that’s the key that seems to be overlooked by a lot of people in this thread. They seem to want to put the canon into a category that it was never intended to address. They insist that it somehow refers to people wanting to walk away from the faith, which really doesn’t fit into this category at all.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Yes, we do agree on that, Picky. It certainly is a complicated mess to try and come to a definite conclusion on how it all fits together. I’ve tried to search for a Catholic source that goes into detail about what the general consensus of it was at the time, or even since that time, but I haven’t had much luck. All I can find is the list of canons, with no details about how they should be interpreted. Most of the other canons seem to be pretty straight forward, but this one is a mess. I have to think that they were trying to include the wording that Erasmus used in his writings to be clear that his whole idea was heretical, including the so called ‘punishments’ that he proposed.

However, I don’t believe that any of it addresses anything other than the validity of Infant Baptism. That’s why it’s listed in this section, which is only addressing heresies related to Baptism. It also ties to the previous canon as if it were a continuation of the same theme, because the original translation says, “those who have been thus baptized”. That previous canon clearly addresses the practice of baptizing infants, which was being called into question by the Anabaptists and others (including some Catholics) of that time period. I think that’s the key that seems to be overlooked by a lot of people in this thread. They seem to want to put the canon into a category that it was never intended to address. They insist that it somehow refers to people wanting to walk away from the faith, which really doesn’t fit into this category at all.

Telstar–I really appreciate that you’ve looked for more detailed Catholic sources on this.

Respectfully, now this is where you’re misreading what he proposed: Erasmus distinctly proposed that there be no other penalties beside the exclusion from the sacraments. He was not advocating other punishments, he was proposing quite the opposite. Ultimately, though, the Council deemed that part, also, of his proposal to be wrong, meaning that they believed there should be other penalties beside the exclusion from the sacraments.

I owe another reply to you and other people when I get caught up with reading the newer posts on this thread. Sorry about being slow to reply.

 

[benhur]

Many of the canons anathematized something. I have no problem with that. But it is another to infer guilt because of language used in other canons to the current canon. Either this particular canon is guilty of coercion by the words it employ or not, not by the words employed elsewhere. This is called inference. Picky transferred the meaning and usage of words used elsewhere assuming that it must apply to canon too. But guilt must be actual, not inferred. Unless you don’t believe in innocence till proven guilty. You then assume guilt by association.

At the risk of repeating, in another post I gave the example of a church member, say your son/daughter/relative /god child wanting to give up the baptismal vows and wanting to join a Satanic sect, would you say it is ok and just refrain from the sacraments? Don’t you want to counsel this person? Being non-expert counselor, won’t you want to get the best counselor that you can think of to dissuade this person? Or you believe that this person should be free to do what he/she feels like doing and you believe a hands off approach is best for this lost sheep? Shouldn’t the Shepard look for his lost sheep? Luke 15:4-7. If you believe the Shepard should do nothing, then our bible and yours are different by a wider margin than previously thought.

As Catholics we believe that Christ is in the Eucharist. If one who is going to give up on his baptism vows and no longer believe in the Eucharist and/or no longer reject Satan, this person MUST be denied this sacrament. It is not as simple as not eating a communal meal for us Catholics. This non-believer will be profaning Christ. We have to stop this sacrilege. Profaning the Eucharist is an auto-excommunicable act. You make it as a nonchalant issue. But I don’t expect non-Catholics to understand.

We believe in the communion of saints. Those sick and weakened deserve our help and attention, not to be put on the ignore list and left to their own devices. Do you do that in your Church if anyone gets on to that list?

The speaking to the press is only an example of regulation. It is not an example of canon language. One can get fired because of disobedience to the boss/company, not necessarily about the contents of the leak. It says a lot about that employee, whether he understands simple instructions, whether he is a team player, whether he obeys SOP.

This canon is an example of regulation. It didn’t state any theology or doctrine.

You have privileged information about this canon regarding wrong information, wrong penalties or wrong cause? Unless you have good information from the Church on this, you are just guessing. But why are you interested in regulations regulating behavior of Catholics? You have no vested interest in how we govern ourselves. The Church has been practicing excommunication since day 1. There is no doctrine that affects Protestantism here.

The canon didn’t say that. The canon only states that “anyone who says bla bla bla” will be anathematized. The canon didn’t say use force to compel behavior. The language didn’t say it. Period. This is not a “it should be meaning this” scenario. When you start using words like the “spirit” of the canon, it really means nothing because we do not know what was the spirit like in the 16th century. We were not there, I don’t have minutes of the meeting detailing what the spirit was like, what the atmosphere was, what information was on the table under consideration, what the stakeholders were considering important or not, whether these canons were for future anticipation of scenarios etc.

Some here believe just because the Church quotes someone saying something, it must mean she is for or against it. But this mindset is unwarranted. It is not grounds to determine guilt.

Since there is so much uncertainty about the language used, perhaps someone who knows of Latin or an old English language expert can shed some light into what the words do mean.

What do Reformer Fathers say out of interest?

Quickly i am on a little ipod butam shaking my head at some of your answers but understand…i prefer to think the language of the canon ii quite clear and is very specific, written by lawyer like mentalityas it should be as in precise and it is regulations, regulations on practice based on theology and we do know what things were like in 16 century,we really do.we must not look at it from today nuances,practices. Why do you assume coercion is guilt when both our forefathers used it and we all do to some extent today,if u believe in excommunication an orderly church.now maybe you are afraid of the level of coercion and yes today they have boundaries and guilt should be placed for crossing them.it is clear reformersvwere trying to back pedal on coercion,going against status quo,and this was anathemized.so that you wont think of mud slinging reformers ended being quite coercive also,very guilty,but apparently rhe canon addressed those that were modmoderate, with anathema

 

[Picky_Picky]

Yes, we do agree on that, Picky. It certainly is a complicated mess to try and come to a definite conclusion on how it all fits together. I’ve tried to search for a Catholic source that goes into detail about what the general consensus of it was at the time, or even since that time, but I haven’t had much luck. All I can find is the list of canons, with no details about how they should be interpreted. Most of the other canons seem to be pretty straight forward, but this one is a mess. I have to think that they were trying to include the wording that Erasmus used in his writings to be clear that his whole idea was heretical, including the so called ‘punishments’ that he proposed.

However, I don’t believe that any of it addresses anything other than the validity of Infant Baptism. That’s why it’s listed in this section, which is only addressing heresies related to Baptism. It also ties to the previous canon as if it were a continuation of the same theme, because the original translation says, “those who have been thus baptized”. That previous canon clearly addresses the practice of baptizing infants, which was being called into question by the Anabaptists and others (including some Catholics) of that time period. I think that’s the key that seems to be overlooked by a lot of people in this thread. They seem to want to put the canon into a category that it was never intended to address. They insist that it somehow refers to people wanting to walk away from the faith, which really doesn’t fit into this category at all.

Yes it is certainly about infant baptism. And it asserts that infant baptism is efficient to the degree that if the child, when grown, wishes not to be bound by his/her childhood baptismal promises, he/she should be compelled, both by excommunication and if necessary “other penalties”, to conform — in other words that walking away from the faith for such a baptised Catholic will not be permitted.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes it is certainly about infant baptism. And it asserts that infant baptism is efficient to the degree that if the child, when grown, wishes not to be bound by his/her childhood baptismal promises, he/she should be compelled, both by excommunication and if necessary “other penalties”, to conform — in other words that walking away from the faith for such a baptised Catholic will not be permitted.

Compelled? Where do you see that?

 

[Telstar]

Telstar–I really appreciate that you’ve looked for more detailed Catholic sources on this.

Respectfully, now this is where you’re misreading what he proposed: Erasmus distinctly proposed that there be no other penalties beside the exclusion from the sacraments. He was not advocating other punishments, he was proposing quite the opposite. Ultimately, though, the Council deemed that part, also, of his proposal to be wrong, meaning that they believed there should be other penalties beside the exclusion from the sacraments.

I owe another reply to you and other people when I get caught up with reading the newer posts on this thread. Sorry about being slow to reply.

Trust me, I have tried every kind of search that I could think of, in many of the usual Catholic resources (EWTN, CAF, New Advent), desperately trying to find anything related to any kind of controversy, or a detailed explanation about this canon, but I couldn’t find anything. If there was ever any mention of controversy about it, I should have found something. The only thing I ever found was that one little blurb about Erasmus.

I really don’t believe I’m misreading it at all. Erasmus said that no other punishments should be applied, except that they should be excluded from the sacraments ‘until they repent’, but even he was basing that suggestion on the fact that ’they should be asked’ first. Maybe it doesn’t seem to be in the eyes of a non-Catholic, but that is a severe penalty for any faithful Catholic, especially if there was no need for it to be applied, because the second part of the proposal was only conditional on the first part happening (that “they should be asked”).

So, I’ll say it again, that whole section that mentions any penalties being applied, is made null and void, because the Church is denying that there is any need to “ask” anyone the question in the first place. There is no mention made of any stipulation concerning someone who chooses to leave the Church. That is a whole different subject. I can’t understand how anyone can insist that it has anything to do with this canon on Baptism. It’s just not there. IMHO, there is no possibility of finding any smoke, if there is no gun.

 

[benhur]

Trust me, I have tried every kind of search that I could think of, in many of the usual Catholic resources (EWTN, CAF, New Advent), desperately trying to find anything related to any kind of controversy, or a detailed explanation about this canon, but I couldn’t find anything. If there was ever any mention of controversy about it, I should have found something. The only thing I ever found was that one little blurb about Erasmus.

I really don’t believe I’m misreading it at all. Erasmus said that no other punishments should be applied, except that they should be excluded from the sacraments ‘until they repent’, but even he was basing that suggestion on the fact that ’they should be asked’ first. Maybe it doesn’t seem to be in the eyes of a non-Catholic, but that is a severe penalty for any faithful Catholic, especially if there was no need for it to be applied, because the second part of the proposal was only conditional on the first part happening (that “they should be asked”).

So, I’ll say it again, that whole section that mentions any penalties being applied, is made null and void, because the Church is denying that there is any need to “ask” anyone the question in the first place. There is no mention made of any stipulation concerning someone who chooses to leave the Church. That is a whole different subject. I can’t understand how anyone can insist that it has anything to do with this canon on Baptism. It’s just not there. IMHO, there is no possibility of finding any smoke, if there is no gun.

Hi T. Good stuff.Thank you .

As to your answer why then not just say whoever asks that question let him be anathema? Why do they have to entertain penalties if they are moot anyways ?

I really think Trent was not only against the theological and practice of infant baptism being challenged, but free will/conscience apart from the church. Canon 8 is plain:

CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that the baptized are freed from all the precepts, whether written or transmitted, of holy Church, in such wise that they are not bound to observe them, unless they have chosen of their own accord to submit themselves thereunto; let him be anathema.

The context is plain. The lines were drawn. Folks,provinces were either remaining or returning back to Catholicism, or to Luthernaism/Protestantism. There was now actually a protected, even sanctioned choice that had to be addressed.

 

[ericc]

Hi T. Good stuff.Thank you .

As to your answer why then not just say whoever asks that question let him be anathema? Why do they have to entertain penalties if they are moot anyways ?

I really think Trent was not only against the theological and practice of infant baptism being challenged, but free will/conscience apart from the church. Canon 8 is plain:

CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that the baptized are freed from all the precepts, whether written or transmitted, of holy Church, in such wise that they are not bound to observe them, unless they have chosen of their own accord to submit themselves thereunto; let him be anathema.

The context is plain. The lines were drawn. Folks,provinces were either remaining or returning back to Catholicism, or to Luthernaism/Protestantism. There was now actually a protected, even sanctioned choice that had to be addressed.

I think we have diverted towards other canons before we have even resolved canon XIV. The OP topic is alleged coercion on canon XIV , not whether the Council has the power to regulate Catholics, which the Council has. Why stop at Trent, there are many other Councils. But losing focus on the topic is exasperating is it not? If anyone wants to discuss other canons, they should start a new thread.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Compelled? Where do you see that?

“Compelled” in the wording quoted in the OP; “forced” in the New Advent wording quoted by Telstar.

 

[ericc]

So, I’ll say it again, that whole section that mentions any penalties being applied, is made null and void, because the Church is denying that there is any need to “ask” anyone the question in the first place. There is no mention made of any stipulation concerning someone who chooses to leave the Church. That is a whole different subject. I can’t understand how anyone can insist that it has anything to do with this canon on Baptism. It’s just not there. IMHO, there is no possibility of finding any smoke, if there is no gun.

I simply see that the Church is stopping the general lay people from proclaiming all sorts of remedies and penalties for subjects that they have no authority to speak. Namely:

a) they are to be left to their own will - they are prescribing a course of action
b) not to be compelled - prescribing controls
c) deciding which Sacraments to be withheld - not something the non-priest is qualified to decide. Even priests do seek guidance from superiors before denying anyone the sacraments.
d) until they repent - prescribing a conditional event

The person who says all these really have no business regulating Church governance. This is not the jurisdiction of the lay catholic.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Trust me, I have tried every kind of search that I could think of, in many of the usual Catholic resources (EWTN, CAF, New Advent), desperately trying to find anything related to any kind of controversy, or a detailed explanation about this canon, but I couldn’t find anything. If there was ever any mention of controversy about it, I should have found something. The only thing I ever found was that one little blurb about Erasmus.

I really don’t believe I’m misreading it at all. Erasmus said that no other punishments should be applied, except that they should be excluded from the sacraments ‘until they repent’, but even he was basing that suggestion on the fact that ’they should be asked’ first. Maybe it doesn’t seem to be in the eyes of a non-Catholic, but that is a severe penalty for any faithful Catholic, especially if there was no need for it to be applied, because the second part of the proposal was only conditional on the first part happening (that “they should be asked”).

So, I’ll say it again, that whole section that mentions any penalties being applied, is made null and void, because the Church is denying that there is any need to “ask” anyone the question in the first place. There is no mention made of any stipulation concerning someone who chooses to leave the Church. That is a whole different subject. I can’t understand how anyone can insist that it has anything to do with this canon on Baptism. It’s just not there. IMHO, there is no possibility of finding any smoke, if there is no gun.

So if the first two conditions are met, and someone disobeys the church and heretically asks the baptism subject if they wish to ratify the vows made on their behalf, and if they reply that they do not wish to do so, is it your opinion that Trent believes “they are to be left to their own will in the matter and not to be forced by penalties to lead a Christian life, except to be deprived of the reception of the Eucharist and of the other sacraments, until they reform”?

I think the debate the canon rules on is clear. There are those who think people cannot be bound by vows made on their behalf when they were infants, but should be free to make their own choice when they are adult. Trent says that view is heretical: baptism is not something to be put on and taken off; it is a sacrament which indelibly marks the subject as a Christian and, as a Christian, subject to the church.

 

[PRmerger]

“Compelled” in the wording quoted in the OP; “forced” in the New Advent wording quoted by Telstar.

I see neither “compelled” nor “forced” in the document from Trent.

Can you please show me where that is?

 

[Picky_Picky]

I see neither “compelled” nor “forced” in the document from Trent.

Can you please show me where that is?

Sure, PR.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct07.html

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.

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

The negative document we call the canons on baptism decreed by the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, De Baptismo), in which the following doctrines are anathematized (declared heretical):
…

Those baptized as infants are to be asked when they have grown up, whether they wish to ratify what their sponsors had promised for them at their baptism, and if they reply that they do not wish to do so, they are to be left to their own will in the matter and not to be forced by penalties to lead a Christian life, except to be deprived of the reception of the Eucharist and of the other sacraments, until they reform.

…

 

[PRmerger]

Sure, PR.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct07.html

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.

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

The negative document we call the canons on baptism decreed by the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, De Baptismo), in which the following doctrines are anathematized (declared heretical):
…

Those baptized as infants are to be asked when they have grown up, whether they wish to ratify what their sponsors had promised for them at their baptism, and if they reply that they do not wish to do so, they are to be left to their own will in the matter and not to be forced by penalties to lead a Christian life, except to be deprived of the reception of the Eucharist and of the other sacraments, until they reform.

…

I was not clear. I’m not looking for the word “compelled” in the document.

You posted that Trent decreed that we are “compelled to conform”.

These are your words: * “And it asserts that infant baptism is efficient to the degree that if the child, when grown, wishes not to be bound by his/her childhood baptismal promises, he/she should be compelled, both by excommunication and if necessary “other penalties”, to conform”*

What you have offered above is exactly the OPPOSITE of your assertion. It says “NOT TO BE COMPELLED.”

Do you have anything from the canon that supports your assertion in italics?

 

[Picky_Picky]

I was not clear. I’m not looking for the word “compelled” in the document.

You posted that Trent decreed that we are “compelled to conform”.

These are your words: * “And it asserts that infant baptism is efficient to the degree that if the child, when grown, wishes not to be bound by his/her childhood baptismal promises, he/she should be compelled, both by excommunication and if necessary “other penalties”, to conform”*

What you have offered above is exactly the OPPOSITE of your assertion. It says “NOT TO BE COMPELLED.”

Do you have anything from the canon that supports your assertion in italics?

Ah, I think you are making the same mistake some others have made in this thread: it’s true the syntax is rather involved. The concept that the subject is “not to be compelled” is being declared by the council to be heretical.

If anyone saith that:

the subject of an infant baptism is to be asked whether they want to ratify the baptismal vows and if they say no they are not to be compelled …

let him be anathema.

 

[PRmerger]

Ah, I think you are making the same mistake some others have made in this thread: it’s true the syntax is rather involved. The concept that the subject is “not to be compelled” is being declared by the council to be heretical.

If anyone saith that:

the subject of an infant baptism is to be asked whether they want to ratify the baptismal vows and if they say no they are not to be compelled …

let him be anathema.

Ah, yes. I see that now. My bad.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Ah, yes. I see that now. My bad.

No problem. Unpeeling the language is a headache, isn’t it.