The Catholic Church and religious coercion- the smoking gun 2

[ericc]

If 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”?

Was there a decision already on the language whether it is

a) the Church proclaiming that “they are to be left to their own will”

OR

b) the offender of the canon saying “they are to be left to their own will” and the Church was only quoting what the offender said?

If you go for a), won’t that that result in the anyone says

“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”

dangling in the air if the Church were to cut in with the

“they are to be left to their own free will” bit. The “let him be anathema” also won’t flow.

And I won’t call it heresy either really because there is no corruption of doctrines being taught. How can it be heresy or be excommed if one is only saying

“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” this portion only.

Could you highlight which part is said by the offender and which part by the Church? It will be much easier to see where you are coming from for the coercion bit. So far the only part clear to me said by the Church is “if anyone saith” and “let him be anathema”.

If there is no decision by a language expert, we are only talking past each other. And we should let it rest and move on to other topics.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Was there a decision already on the language whether it is

a) the Church proclaiming that “they are to be left to their own will”

OR

b) the offender of the canon saying “they are to be left to their own will” and the Church was only quoting what the offender said?

If you go for a), won’t that that result in the anyone says

“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”

dangling in the air if the Church were to cut in with the

“they are to be left to their own free will” bit. The “let him be anathema” also won’t flow.

And I won’t call it heresy either really because there is no corruption of doctrines being taught. How can it be heresy or be excommed if one is only saying

“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” this portion only.

Could you highlight which part is said by the offender and which part by the Church? It will be much easier to see where you are coming from for the coercion bit. So far the only part clear to me said by the Church is “if anyone saith” and “let him be anathema”.

If there is no decision by a language expert, we are only talking past each other. And we should let it rest and move on to other topics.

Oh, I think it’s clear enough that all of it is being said by the church, but the bit between “if anyone saith” and “let him be anathema” is the church quoting the hypothetical person whom it is anathematising.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Oh, I think it’s clear enough that all of it is being said by the church, but the bit between “if anyone saith” and “let him be anathema” is the church quoting the hypothetical person whom it is anathematising.

So, in your terms, (b).

 

[benhur]

]First of all, Picky only quoted one section of the canon to serve his purpose. Then, he wanted me to answer his hypothetical question, just based on that small section. But, I refused to speculate about what the Council might have done in his hypothetical situation. I

Hi Telstar. I think #14 does not separate the question and assume you ask heretically because of infant baptismal insufuficiency. That is dealt with in #13.The question may very well apply to confirmation, a "sealing’ of the Christian walk. There is nothing about "rebaptizing’’. “Ratifying” and “restating” as you say confirmation is, seem like similar words. If that is the case then the hypothetical recourse for one’s denial of confirmation (sealing) is inseparable to the anathemizing.

Yes, I did say that, but you’re reading it wrong. After reading this whole thread and seeing the way some people interpret what they read, that really shouldn’t surprise me at all. Maybe it would help if I add a little emphasis on the most significant point that I was trying to make."‘Anyone that would engage in asking someone to ratify their vows, because they were Baptized as a child, would automatically fall under the category of, “If anyone says”.’

Understand.But it can be seen the other way ,the bishops asks young ones to be confirmed because they have been baptized. That is, no one is confirmed unless they have been baptized (and most as infants).

In the Sacrament of Confirmation, the Bishop asks the candidates to restate their Baptismal vows, in order to confirm that they freely accept the vows that were made for them by their sponsors (not to retake them to make them “real”). The Bishop doesn’t question the validity of their Baptism, just because they were Baptized when they were babies.

Still sounds a lot like , “whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their name when they were baptized,” to seal.

Actually I appreciate what you bring here , and am fascinated what has been posted about Erasmus.

Blessings

 

[AbideWithMe]

because

they have been baptized. That is, no one is confirmed unless they have been baptized (and most as infants).
Still sounds a lot like , “whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their name when they were baptized,” to seal.

Actually I appreciate what you bring here , and am fascinated what has been posted about Erasmus.

Blessings

This thread has motivated me to read more about Erasmus myself.

I think, too, that going from my rudimentary ability to explore Latin root words, “ratify” and “confirm” were originally based of similar concrete concepts. I don’t think Erasmus himself had any idea of denying the validity of infant baptism, though, again, some churchmen seem to have thought it might appear that way.

 

[Easter_Joey]

Again, why is this a smoking gun?

From our current Code of Canon Law, Canon 1311: The Church has the innate and proper right to coerce offending members of the Christian faithful with penal sanctions.

If the question is about religious freedom in general, why not throw the Syllabus of Errors or the Encyclicals Quanta Cura or Libertas into the mix?

Insofar as religious freedom is concerned, all of our rights are meant to serve the common good. Keeping this in mind, I see no problem reconciling Dignitatis Humanae and other more recent statements with older, Tridentine-influenced statements.

 

[dronald]

Fascinating. And where in that Bull is this canon referenced as the justification for burning heretics?

You must not have read all of my points:

“Witness to this is the condemnation and punishment in the Council of Constance of the infidelity of the Hussites (leader burned) and Wyclifites (treated like dirt) as well as Jerome of Prague (burned)”

Read the whole bull.

Also, Papal Bulls also do not invoke infallibility. There is actually very little that does. Just FYI.

What is your point? The Pope could teach lies/heresy, teach evil/hate, from the chair of Peter, through his writings and none of it would matter because it’s just a bull?

This kind of thinking really confuses me about Catholicism. The Pope from the chair of Peter being immoral, but it’s okay because it doesn’t count. I can never get my head around the criteria. This was on Faith and Morals from the chair of Peter…

How would you respond to the persecution of Catholics by Protestant Christians? Essentially every Christian state that became Protestant persecuted Catholics or other Christians, including the reformers who came up with the five solas. Does this impeach their teachings? Or was it perhaps justified because it was considered treason? If it does not impugn their teachings or it was justified, would this courtesy also be extended to the Catholics?

It’s never justified. Protestants never claim to be infallible.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s never justified. Protestants never claim to be infallible.

Impeccable. That’s the word you should have used. Not infallible.

“Protestants never claim to be impeccable”.

Infallibility has nothing to do with Christians being sinners and persecuting other Christians.

 

[dronald]

Impeccable. That’s the word you should have used. Not infallible.

“Protestants never claim to be impeccable”.

Infallibility has nothing to do with Christians being sinners and persecuting other Christians.

Thanks.

But doesn’t the CC claim to be the one true church that teaches infallibly when the Pope sits on the chair of Peter and gives teachings on faith and morals?

Therefore when the Pope says “Luther, you’re incorrect about this” isn’t he teaching infallibly? And if not, then it seems the Pope could be teaching heresy/hate at any time and everything written is subject to scrutiny.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks.

But doesn’t the CC claim to be the one true church that teaches infallibly when the Pope sits on the chair of Peter and gives teachings on faith and morals?

Yes. When he intends to speak infallibly.

Therefore when the Pope says “Luther, you’re incorrect about this” isn’t he teaching infallibly?

Absolutely not! If a pope was sitting on the chair of Peter and having a conversation with Fr. Martin Luther, in no way shape or form was he teaching infallibly.

And if not, then it seems the Pope could be teaching heresy/hate at any time and everything written is subject to scrutiny.

Indeed. Every pope *could *be teaching heresy/hate at any time.

Except when he is sitting on the chair of Peter and is invoking the charism of infallibility.

And even then, since it is a negative charism, it simply means that what he preaches is without error. It doesn’t mean that it’s stated in the best way possible. Or that it’s the entirety of truth on that matter. It simply means that when the pope says, “I declare this belief to be true”…it is.

 

[dronald]

Yes. When he intends to speak infallibly.

Absolutely not! If a pope was sitting on the chair of Peter and having a conversation with Fr. Martin Luther, in no way shape or form was he teaching infallibly.

Indeed. Every pope *could *be teaching heresy/hate at any time.

Except when he is sitting on the chair of Peter and is invoking the charism of infallibility.

And even then, since it is a negative charism, it simply means that what he preaches is without error. It doesn’t mean that it’s stated in the best way possible. Or that it’s the entirety of truth on that matter. It simply means that when the pope says, “I declare this belief to be true”…it is.

Thanks again.

So therefore, based on your last sentence, the Bull is infallible. He clearly declared what he wrote to be true, and was on the chair of Peter. No?

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks again.

So therefore, based on your last sentence, the Bull is infallible. He clearly declared what he wrote to be true, and was on the chair of Peter. No?

No. A Bull is not infallible. But certain teachings in the Bull may be.

 

[dronald]

No. A Bull is not infallible.

The Pope certainly seemed to think his beliefs were quite “Catholic”.

But certain teachings in the Bull may be.

May?.. So confusing.

 

[PRmerger]

The Pope certainly seemed to think his beliefs were quite “Catholic”.

Well of course.

May?.. So confusing.

There’s no need to be confused.

There’s a reference online for the sure norm for the Catholic faith. It’s called the Catechism.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Whether something is infallible or not is not that important. We believe and uphold everything professed in the Catechism.

 

[PRmerger]

May?.. So confusing.

Are you more clear now about when to use “infallible” and when to use “impeccable”?

 

[Genesis315]

It does happen in many contexts in civil society, you are right. Although it is also usual in civil society to allow adults their own freedom to decide in such matters.

Adults are also given the freedom to decide to be baptized or not. But just because someone freely joins a society and freely makes certain promises to fulfill certain duties, doesn’t mean therefore that the person can freely choose to ignore or neglect those afterward or that the society cannot enforce those promises. By joining the society the person subjects themselves to that society’s jurisdiction and authority. Even volunteer militaries punish deserters. All sorts of free organizations punish members who violate the organizations rules.

The choice to be baptized is not some willy-nilly consequence-free choice that requires nothing afterward of the person being baptized.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Adults are also given the freedom to decide to be baptized or not. But just because someone freely joins a society and freely makes certain promises to fulfill certain duties, doesn’t mean therefore that the person can freely choose to ignore or neglect those afterward or that the society cannot enforce those promises. By joining the society the person subjects themselves to that society’s jurisdiction and authority. Even volunteer militaries punish deserters. All sorts of free organizations punish members who violate the organizations rules.

The choice to be baptized is not some willy-nilly consequence-free choice that requires nothing afterward of the person being baptized.

But the whole point at issue with regard to this canon is that it is ruling in cases where there has been no freedom to make certain promises to fulfill certain duties, but where those promises have been made on an infant’s behalf. In such cases the person has not subjected himself to the church’s jurisdiction but, according to the canon, lies under that jurisdiction nonetheless. Your points about an adult’s freedom to choose therefore work directly against the ruling of Trent.

 

[Telstar]

But the whole point at issue with regard to this canon is that it is ruling in cases where there has been no freedom to make certain promises to fulfill certain duties, but where those promises have been made on an infant’s behalf. In such cases the person has not subjected himself to the church’s jurisdiction but, according to the canon, lies under that jurisdiction nonetheless. Your points about an adult’s freedom to choose therefore work directly against the ruling of Trent.

I have a hypothetical question of my own for all those who are so obsessed about how unfair the Catholic Church is, to Baptize babies without giving them any way to be released from those vows, when they grow up.

Those of you who pass judgement on the Catholic Church, and see this as a practice that takes away the freedom of an individual to choose their own religious views, to practice as an adult; would you be so quick to make the same accusations against the Jewish people, who circumcise their sons as infants? Wouldn’t you say that’s also an unfair practice, because it takes away their ‘right to choose their religion for themselves’? Do you suppose they should be able to choose to be circumcised as an adult, instead? It certainly doesn’t have any greater possibility of being reversed than Baptism, does it? Would any of you be comfortable going to a Jewish forum, to try and tell them that they’re being unfair to their sons, by not letting them make their own religious choice? I seriously doubt it. But, here we are.

Baptism is the Christian equivalent of Jewish circumcision, which was a foreshadowing of Baptism. Both traditions willingly submit to it, because they both believe that it was commanded by God. Personally, I would much rather submit to what God expects me to do, than to submit to someone from outside of my Church, that wants to pass judgement on how I should practice my Faith. Catholics are obliged to follow what Jesus commanded us to do. The Catholic Church is not a democracy, ruled by popular opinion. We are ruled by the teachings of Jesus Christ, which we willingly obey. We are not obliged to follow the popular opinions of people outside the Church, who would like to have us conform to their own beliefs.

Maybe we should all try to remember what Jesus said in the sermon on the mount, before we start passing judgement on anyone else.Matthew 7: "[1] Judge not, that you may not be judged, [2] For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. [3] And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother’ s eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?"

 

[benhur]

Those of you who pass judgement on the Catholic Church, and see this as a practice that takes away the freedom of an individual to choose their own religious views, to practice as an adult; would you be so quick to make the same accusations against the Jewish people, who circumcise their sons as infants? Wouldn’t you say that’s also an unfair practice, because it takes away their ‘right to choose their religion for themselves’?

The question is more about what happens if one decides not to follow. So infant baptism or circumcision is not the issue here, but what happens if one is not spiritual and rejects the infant vow, or even accepts another sect within the faith (say like Lutheranism).

Do Jews excommunicate or ostracize their prodigals? “Fiddler on the Roof” suggests something, but it is not an institutionalized excommunication/penalty etc…

Do you suppose they should be able to choose to be circumcised as an adult, instead?

That is not the issue with canon #14 (but more with #13)…

It certainly doesn’t have any greater possibility of being reversed than Baptism, does it?

Again, it certainly can be, spiritually speaking (though some P’s might say how can you reverse something that apparently didn’t "take’’) . After all, this is a religious rite that can be spurned.

Would any of you be comfortable going to a Jewish forum, to try and tell them that they’re being unfair to their sons, by not letting them make their own religious choice?

Again, the issue is what if the vow is later ignored or rejected? That an infant is spoken for is partly ok and partly problematic for both Jew and Christian Otherwise why would Jews have a bar mitzvah and us confirmation ?

Baptism is the Christian equivalent of Jewish circumcision, which was a foreshadowing of Baptism. Both traditions willingly submit to it, because they both believe that it was commanded by God. Personally, I would much rather submit to what God expects me to do,

Again, we agree to baptism. The problem or challenge with any righteous work/rite/sacrament is not just the doing but the being,as in spiritual,as in being circumcised of the heart, or born again, into new life. We all agree there are many who have been water baptized as infants and adults who are Christian in name only. Jesus and Paul address this often. The reformation tried to also. They pushed for further evidence of this baptismal efficacy, a bit like your confirmation but more so.

Catholics are obliged to follow what Jesus commanded us to do

Yes , all Christians are commanded many things to do and many things to be… The question is how did Jesus deal with unregenerate unbelief, prodigals, even rejection of Himself ?

Maybe we should all try to remember what Jesus said in the sermon on the mount, before we start passing judgement on anyone else.

Matthew 7: "[1] Judge not, that you may not be judged, [2] For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. [3] And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother’ s eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?"
​

Amen.

And I will leave you with what Jesus told Nicodemus,who was not only circumcised and bar mitzvahed but ordained, " You (Nicodemus) must be born again".

Blessings T​

 

[ericc]

The question is more about what happens if one decides not to follow. So infant baptism or circumcision is not the issue here, but what happens if one is not spiritual and rejects the infant vow, or even accepts another sect within the faith (say like Lutheranism).

He becomes a lapsed Catholic. He can repent and all can be made good again such as receiving the sacraments.