The Catholic Church and religious coercion- the smoking gun 2

[Picky_Picky]

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?"

Since you are addressing me, I assume it is me you are accusing of “passing judgement” on the RCC. Not so, as I shall explain, I hope to your satisfaction.

Firstly, I have no problem with infant baptism.

Secondly, I would think it disgraceful if those baptised as infants were compelled by church penalties to be bound, on achieving adulthood, by the vows made for them by their sponsors, but in fact I think it highly unlikely that such compulsion is practised, at least in advanced societies, in the 21st century.

Thirdly, while I am somewhat uneasy about circumcision, I don’t feel obliged to make accusations against the Jewish people on the subject.

Fourthly, however, those societies that think female genital mutilation is a good thing open themselves to a degree of accusation that I hope you would join.

Fifthly, if the Jewish forum had a subforum called “Non-Jewish Religions” it might expect some questioning of Jewish beliefs to take place there.

Sixthly, I have not accused the RCC of being unfair. I joined this discussion simply because so much illogic was being displayed and so much was being inferred from the canon that depended on misreadings of syntax (and since logic and linguistics are two of my interests). It is interesting, though, to see what reasonings people will adopt to defend a statement which, were it actually applied in our societies today, would be so clearly counter to what the church now teaches about religious freedom.

 

[benhur]

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

Yes thank you ericc. Canon #14 however seems to anathemize when one does that (deny sacraments until repentance is shown). The best you can say is that it is tied to asking the question in the first place (like are you lapsed ?,or do you accept your baptismal vows?).

 

[Telstar]

Since you are addressing me, I assume it is me you are accusing of “passing judgement” on the RCC. Not so, as I shall explain, I hope to your satisfaction.

Even though I was quoting your post, I thought I was very clear in wording my question:“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.”
I apologize if you thought it was only addressed to you, personally, because it wasn’t. It was addressed to all posters who think the Church is being unfair. If you don’t fit the description, it wasn’t meant for you. But, your post also mentioned ideas like “freedom to choose” and “the church’s jurisdiction” which were a few other things that sparked my response.

Firstly, I have no problem with infant baptism.

I’m not sure that’s entirely true, but it’s a good start.

Secondly, I would think it disgraceful if those baptised as infants were compelled by church penalties to be bound, on achieving adulthood, by the vows made for them by their sponsors, but in fact I think it highly unlikely that such compulsion is practised, at least in advanced societies, in the 21st century.

This refutes your first statement, because it shows that you really do have a problem with infant Baptism, even if it’s only a problem with the formula used by the Catholic Church. Calling what the Church does “disgraceful”, is also a means of passing judgement on Church practice. The Baptized are still bound by their vows, whether they made them for themselves or not. If they were also Confirmed in the Church, then they actually renewed those vows for themselves. If they choose to leave, then they really are abdicating their own vows. They are still Baptized because nothing can reverse Baptism, no matter who performs the ceremony. They will always be subjects of Jesus Christ, their lawful King, whether they remain faithful to Him or not.

Thirdly, while I am somewhat uneasy about circumcision, I don’t feel obliged to make accusations against the Jewish people on the subject.

While I do believe that it was commanded by God, it was part of the Old Law that has already been fulfilled in Christ. I have three sons. None of them was circumcised, because we’re not Jewish.

Fourthly, however, those societies that think female genital mutilation is a good thing open themselves to a degree of accusation that I hope you would join.

There is absolutely nothing in the Old Law that’s related in the Bible that calls for anything like that, so I would definitely agree with you on that one.

Fifthly, if the Jewish forum had a subforum called “Non-Jewish Religions” it might expect some questioning of Jewish beliefs to take place there.

Touché. I suppose I have to give you that one.

Sixthly, I have not accused the RCC of being unfair.

You have inferred it. You even call Church practices “disgraceful”, so you must believe that She is being “unfair”.

I joined this discussion simply because so much illogic was being displayed and so much was being inferred from the canon that depended on misreadings of syntax (and since logic and linguistics are two of my interests). It is interesting, though, to see what reasonings people will adopt to defend a statement which, were it actually applied in our societies today, would be so clearly counter to what the church now teaches about religious freedom.

I certainly agree that many people reading that statement can easily be confused by the language, even though it’s written in English. The fact of the matter is that it’s still a valid canon, today. That’s why all of the wild accusations made in this thread are so absurd.

Certainly it has a different connotation now, than it had, then. But, it is still a valid canon of the Church. Back then, many countries were subject to the laws of the Church in addition to the civil laws of the land. So, when someone decided to leave the Church, they were also obliged to leave that country. In fact, they were to be expelled by force, if necessary. Because of that, leaving the Catholic Church wasn’t as simple as members not going to Mass anymore. Leaving the Church was tantamount to committing a serious offense against the state, including treason, which was often punishable by death.

In modern times, everyone in this world is born under the jurisdiction of a government that grants them citizenship, and no individual citizen is exempt from following the laws of that government. Those children do not have a choice, as long as their parents consider themselves to be citizens. They are raised under the laws of that country (let’s say the US) and educated as to their personal obligation to follow its laws, or face punishment. They may not take “personal vows” of allegiance, but their vow of allegiance is automatically imposed upon them by virtue of their parents’ citizenship. When they grow up, they are free to leave that country if they no longer wish to be subject to it’s laws, and go to another that they might like better.

It’s the same with the Church. People are free to choose to leave, but the Church always reserves the right to apply certain penalties upon them. Usually, they’re spiritual penalties, like denying them access to some of the Church’s Sacraments until they ‘repent’, by going to Confession. If someone actually leaves the Catholic Church to join another one (or none), I doubt they would care if the Church applied any of those penalties on them. Why would they, if they don’t believe anything the Church teaches is true? It makes no sense for them to be offended by it.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I’m not sure that’s entirely true, but it’s a good start.
…

Perhaps I might be the better judge of my own opinions.

…
This refutes your first statement, because it shows that you really do have a problem with infant Baptism, even if it’s only a problem with the formula used by the Catholic Church.
…

No it doesn’t.

…
Calling what the Church does “disgraceful”, is also a means of passing judgement on Church practice.
…

I did not call what the Church does “disgraceful”. I explicitly said I did not believe the Church did behave in that disgraceful way today.

…
The Baptized are still bound by their vows, whether they made them for themselves or not. If they were also Confirmed in the Church, then they actually renewed those vows for themselves. If they choose to leave, then they really are abdicating their own vows. They are still Baptized because nothing can reverse Baptism, no matter who performs the ceremony. They will always be subjects of Jesus Christ, their lawful King, whether they remain faithful to Him or not.
…

The bit about abdicating their own vows is quite wrong.

…
You have inferred it. You even call Church practices “disgraceful”, so you must believe that She is being “unfair”.
…

I have not implied it, I did not call Church practices “disgraceful”.

…
So, when someone decided to leave the Church, they were also obliged to leave that country. In fact, they were to be expelled by force, if necessary. Because of that, leaving the Catholic Church wasn’t as simple as members not going to Mass anymore. Leaving the Church was tantamount to committing a serious offense against the state, including treason, which was often punishable by death.
…

I fear that is all too true.

…
It’s the same with the Church. People are free to choose to leave, but the Church always reserves the right to apply certain penalties upon them. Usually, they’re spiritual penalties, like denying them access to some of the Church’s Sacraments until they ‘repent’, by going to Confession. If someone actually leaves the Catholic Church to join another one (or none), I doubt they would care if the Church applied any of those penalties on them. Why would they, if they don’t believe anything the Church teaches is true? It makes no sense for them to be offended by it.

It may not be that they don’t believe anything the Church teaches is true — indeed that is probably unlikely. And, of course, as you know, I have not been talking about excommunication, but about those “other penalties” — you know, the ones like death — which the canon thought might be applied, but which, happily, it no longer thinks it proper to encourage.

 

[benhur]

They are still Baptized because nothing can reverse Baptism, no matter who performs the ceremony. They will always be subjects of Jesus Christ, their lawful King, whether they remain faithful to Him or not.

Hi T from your favorite butting in’er.

I find this fascinatingly strange. A strange sacramental efficacy (result).

It is almost like there are three kinds of people, when I had there were only two:the saved and the unsaved, the regenerate and the unregenerate, children of the promise, of God of light, and children of unbelief,the devil. of darkness. What you suggest is a third kind, those in darkness yet baptized a lawful citizen with a lawful King. So for you there is the #1 unbaptized as in lost lost, and the #2 saved walking in Truth baptized, and the #3 walking in darkness,rebellion baptized.

Your definition of “subject” could be liberally applied to all human beings. I mean we are all His creatures, His creation and all are subject to Him.

Having said all that I agree that their is a vested interest where light, even seeds have been laid down on “children”. But I also no know He died so that not any have to perish and wish all to be saved and is not a respecter of persons. I understand the covenant nature, as in to the Jew first Christ came, yet the Spirit is willing to revive all spirits dead in trespasses and sins.

As to baptism, could it not be that it can be ineffectual just as circumcision was, and is said to be by Peter and Paul.

Bottom line all rites and sacraments aside, you must be born again.

Blessings

 

[ffg]

I’m guessing this thread having been forced back on it’s tracks at one point is getting close to entering the station. Some questions I thought about in reading through…

At what point do the consequences for breaking the rules of an entity become coercion?

Is it something like -

No consequences - no coercion (When is there ever no re-action to an action?)

Any consequence - coercion

???

Are ‘free will’ employees really just ‘subjects’ of coercion? Since to continue employment, they are obliged to act per the rules of the entity for which they work?

How is this different from a church? Where members who, to continue membership in full participation, must abide by rules of the church?

Is coercion the smoking word?

Take care,

 

[AbideWithMe]

How is this different from a church? Where members who, to continue membership in full participation, must abide by rules of the church?

Is coercion the smoking word?

Take care,

The canon had to do with people who did not want to continue membership in full participation, and who had not agreed to membership by their own consent, but rather by someone else’s (not just a parent’s) act of requesting or administering baptism. Should they still be compelled by penalties to continue membership and abide by the rules, or could they be allowed to follow “their own will” and leave the religion?

 

[AbideWithMe]

Even though I was quoting your post, I thought I was very clear in wording my question:“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.”
I apologize if you thought it was only addressed to you, personally, because it wasn’t. It was addressed to all posters who think the Church is being unfair. If you don’t fit the description, it wasn’t meant for you. But, your post also mentioned ideas like “freedom to choose” and “the church’s jurisdiction” which were a few other things that sparked my response.

I’m not sure that’s entirely true, but it’s a good start.

This refutes your first statement, because it shows that you really do have a problem with infant Baptism, even if it’s only a problem with the formula used by the Catholic Church. Calling what the Church does “disgraceful”, is also a means of passing judgement on Church practice. The Baptized are still bound by their vows, whether they made them for themselves or not. If they were also Confirmed in the Church, then they actually renewed those vows for themselves. If they choose to leave, then they really are abdicating their own vows. They are still Baptized because nothing can reverse Baptism, no matter who performs the ceremony. They will always be subjects of Jesus Christ, their lawful King, whether they remain faithful to Him or not.

While I do believe that it was commanded by God, it was part of the Old Law that has already been fulfilled in Christ. I have three sons. None of them was circumcised, because we’re not Jewish.

There is absolutely nothing in the Old Law that’s related in the Bible that calls for anything like that, so I would definitely agree with you on that one.

Touché. I suppose I have to give you that one.

You have inferred it. You even call Church practices “disgraceful”, so you must believe that She is being “unfair”.

I certainly agree that many people reading that statement can easily be confused by the language, even though it’s written in English. The fact of the matter is that it’s still a valid canon, today. That’s why all of the wild accusations made in this thread are so absurd.

Certainly it has a different connotation now, than it had, then. But, it is still a valid canon of the Church. Back then, many countries were subject to the laws of the Church in addition to the civil laws of the land. So, when someone decided to leave the Church, they were also obliged to leave that country. In fact, they were to be expelled by force, if necessary. Because of that, leaving the Catholic Church wasn’t as simple as members not going to Mass anymore. Leaving the Church was tantamount to committing a serious offense against the state, including treason, which was often punishable by death.

In modern times, everyone in this world is born under the jurisdiction of a government that grants them citizenship, and no individual citizen is exempt from following the laws of that government. Those children do not have a choice, as long as their parents consider themselves to be citizens. They are raised under the laws of that country (let’s say the US) and educated as to their personal obligation to follow its laws, or face punishment. They may not take “personal vows” of allegiance, but their vow of allegiance is automatically imposed upon them by virtue of their parents’ citizenship. When they grow up, they are free to leave that country if they no longer wish to be subject to it’s laws, and go to another that they might like better.

It’s the same with the Church. People are free to choose to leave, but the Church always reserves the right to apply certain penalties upon them. Usually, they’re spiritual penalties, like denying them access to some of the Church’s Sacraments until they ‘repent’, by going to Confession. If someone actually leaves the Catholic Church to join another one (or none), I doubt they would care if the Church applied any of those penalties on them. Why would they, if they don’t believe anything the Church teaches is true? It makes no sense for them to be offended by it.

I think, Telstar, that you’d agree that God asks us to have a type of intimate, and freely given, connection with both Him and His Church, while one’s citizenship in a country does not require that kind of love. A person can dislike their country and still be a law abiding citizen in good standing. I think maybe a better analogy would be that of a person promised in marriage by their parents while they were still a child, with no consent given by the child. When that child comes of age, should they be asked if they will ratify the promises made on their behalf, and ultimately say “I do” themselves from their own free will, or are they still bound to live out that marriage against their will?

 

[SyroMalankara]

I think, Telstar, that you’d agree that God asks us to have a type of intimate, and freely given, connection with both Him and His Church, while one’s citizenship in a country does not require that kind of love. A person can dislike their country and still be a law abiding citizen in good standing. I think maybe a better analogy would be that of a person promised in marriage by their parents while they were still a child, with no consent given by the child. When that child comes of age, should they be asked if they will ratify the promises made on their behalf, and ultimately say “I do” themselves from their own free will, or are they still bound to live out that marriage against their will?

I assume you are a citizen of the United States or Canada due to certain decisions made by your parents. Upon adulthood, if male, you are bound to join the Selective Service due to the actions of your parents. In many nations, one is legally bound to join the military at 16 or 18, due to the choices of their parents. This implies more than a hate but law-abiding, it implies some kind of patriotism (Israel, Serbia, etc). Why is it such an stretch to consider faith-religious obligation - is religion/faith some secondary, non-essential characteristic? Seems a modern maybe ‘enlightenment’ idea.

As to arranged child marriages - while the modern Western world would say, “they must be allowed to choose”; the rest of the world would probably say, “what do you mean choose - choose what?”

 

[Telstar]

Perhaps I might be the better judge of my own opinions.

I’m sure you are.

No it doesn’t.

Your posts do seem to imply that you may have some reservations about certain aspects of Catholic Baptism, or you probably wouldn’t be objecting to what the canon says. I doubt you would object to the vows I quoted earlier in the thread, which denounce “satan and all his pomps”, etc., but Catholic Baptism also includes making a promise of fidelity to the Faith, which you might object to if you’re not Catholic. Or, even more so if you were a Catholic that left the Church.

I did not call what the Church does “disgraceful”. I explicitly said I did not believe the Church did behave in that disgraceful way today.

The bit about abdicating their own vows is quite wrong.

I have not implied it, I did not call Church practices “disgraceful”.

This is what you said:"Secondly, I would think it disgraceful if those baptised as infants were compelled by church penalties to be bound, on achieving adulthood, by the vows made for them by their sponsors, but in fact I think it highly unlikely that such compulsion is practised, at least in advanced societies, in the 21st century."You said it would be “disgraceful” for the Church to penalize adults for abandoning their vows, if they were Baptized as infants. But, the Church still imposes penalties on Catholics for doing that. She has full authority, and every right to do so. When we take a solemn vow like this one, we are swearing to God that we will do all that we vow to do. So, She binds all Catholics to remain faithful to any vows that they take. This falls under the category of the authority that Jesus gave to His Church when He said to Peter, “whatever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven”. According to your stated opinion, you would see this as the Church acting in a “disgraceful” manner. Most Catholics would see it as being the complete opposite, because the Church is remaining faithful to the commands of Jesus Christ, who gave the Apostles explicit instructions:“Matthew 28: [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”

I fear that is all too true.

The whole situation was completely different back then, but that canon is still valid, today. There is a huge difference between the Canon Laws of the Church, and the civil laws of the local government that the Church is also subject to follow. But, She clearly teaches that some of them are not acceptable for Catholics, like those that allow divorce or abortion. Unfortunately, some people commenting in this thread seem to forget about the political part of the situation that existed at the time of the Council of Trent. Living during that time period was nothing like it is, now.

It may not be that they don’t believe anything the Church teaches is true — indeed that is probably unlikely. And, of course, as you know, I have not been talking about excommunication, but about those “other penalties” — you know, the ones like death — which the canon thought might be applied, but which, happily, it no longer thinks it proper to encourage.

You’re right. It’s pretty clear that they might believe in some of the things that the Church teaches if they at least remained Christian, but not all of them do. I disagree about what those “other penalties” might include, since the canon doesn’t specify. First of all, it was quoted almost word for word from something written by Erasmus, so those words were not stated by the Church, but were only what he had said. The Council just wanted to be very clear that his opinions, and his public statements concerning the subject, were not to be believed because they were all wrong.

 

[AbideWithMe]

I assume you are a citizen of the United States or Canada due to certain decisions made by your parents. Upon adulthood, if male, you are bound to join the Selective Service due to the actions of your parents. In many nations, one is legally bound to join the military at 16 or 18, due to the choices of their parents. This implies more than a hate but law-abiding, it implies some kind of patriotism (Israel, Serbia, etc). Why is it such an stretch to consider faith-religious obligation - is religion/faith some secondary, non-essential characteristic? Seems a modern maybe ‘enlightenment’ idea.

As to arranged child marriages - while the modern Western world would say, “they must be allowed to choose”; the rest of the world would probably say, “what do you mean choose - choose what?”

SyroMalankara—In the analogy I gave, which I think is quite appropriate considering how often the church is spoken of as the Bride of Christ, we would not be talking about an arranged marriage, but a forced marriage, though it started out as a simple arranged marriage. In an arranged marriage, the partners still can say yes or no for themselves. In a forced marriage, a “no” from the prospective bride means nothing–she still will be compelled to marry the man against her will. That’s widely recognized as a violation of basic human rights, whereas an arranged marriage is not; but not only that, it makes a mockery of the idea that God gave us free will to choose to love Him or not. It gets right down to the core of what God desires from us, what His nature is, and what human nature is.

In your first scenario, someone who truly hates his country should probably do whatever he nneds to do to leave it; I spoke of dislike, though, a lesser and more ambivalent attitude. Regardless, my point was that God asks so much more of us than toleration of Himself—He ask us to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. Are we agreed that love cannot be compelled; that, as Xenophon wrote, “What is forced can never be beautiful”?

 

[Peter_J]

Picky Picky;12982950:

Because, I’m afraid, the canon says that anyone holding that opinion — the opinion that “they are to be left to their own will”, etc — is anathema. The opinion that you say is “fair enough” is the one the canon condemns.

]Agree. I had to read it many times to see exactly what they were anathemizing, which the entire statement # 10, everything preceding “anathema”. Another words, what most of us (C’s an P’s) think is fair and right today in #10 is anathema.

Don’t mind me if I start singing John Denver’s “Thank God I’m a Melkite.”

No, but seriously I need to be fair to be Latin Catholic brethren by pointing out I’m sure that vast majority of them in no way agree with the canon you quoted.

Nor can I see that. Sometimes I entertain myself with the thought of calling this forum a Mutual Exasperation Society (the counterpart to a Mutual Admiration Society), in awareness that each side is probably dumbfounding each other equally. It keeps me from banging my head on the wall.

No comment.

 

[SyroMalankara]

SyroMalankara—In the analogy I gave, which I think is quite appropriate considering how often the church is spoken of as the Bride of Christ, we would not be talking about an arranged marriage, but a forced marriage, though it started out as a simple arranged marriage. In an arranged marriage, the partners still can say yes or no for themselves. In a forced marriage, a “no” from the prospective bride means nothing–she still will be compelled to marry the man against her will. That’s widely recognized as a violation of basic human rights, whereas an arranged marriage is not; but not only that, it makes a mockery of the idea that God gave us free will to choose to love Him or not. It gets right down to the core of what God desires from us, what His nature is, and what human nature is.

Free will is still there, but one cannot leave any marriage without some estrangement between individuals. The Church - which isn’t the one leaving - would call these ‘penalties’, or ‘there’s something to be done to fully reconcile this chasm.’

In your first scenario, someone who truly hates his country should probably do whatever he nneds to do to leave it; I spoke of dislike, though, a lesser and more ambivalent attitude

Yet it isn’t automatic. Simply hating the country or even leaving does nothing to revoke citizenship. Leaving nor revoking does anything in regard to the obligations the country decides as law.

Regardless, my point was that God asks so much more of us than toleration of Himself—He ask us to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. Are we agreed that love cannot be compelled; that, as Xenophon wrote, “What is forced can never be beautiful”?

Agreed. However, when does obligation begin? One ‘should not’ be compelled or forced to do anything, does this mean there is no penalty for breaking any Sacrament (what about marriage or ordination)?

 

[Telstar]

Hi T from your favorite butting in’er.

Hi, ben.

I find this fascinatingly strange. A strange sacramental efficacy (result).

It is almost like there are three kinds of people, when I had there were only two:the saved and the unsaved, the regenerate and the unregenerate, children of the promise, of God of light, and children of unbelief,the devil. of darkness. What you suggest is a third kind, those in darkness yet baptized a lawful citizen with a lawful King. So for you there is the #1 unbaptized as in lost lost, and the #2 saved walking in Truth baptized, and the #3 walking in darkness,rebellion baptized.

I really don’t think about people falling into any of those kinds of specific categories. There are way too many variables to consider, so trying to narrow things down that much isn’t really practical. To me, it seems to be a bit too judgmental to try to classify all people according to those limitations. I like to think we’re all on our own path to find the truth. Some of us might take a bit longer than others to figure out the best way to do that, but that doesn’t mean I have any right to pass judgment on others, at any point along their journey.

I believe our job is to try and help others to get there, any way we can. I know if I need help, then I’d like to think that I can count on someone else to do the same thing for me. I prefer to believe that we’re all in this thing, together. So, instead of looking at other people by where we might think they stand on their path to salvation, it might be more helpful to just pray for each other, so we can all arrive at our destination without losing anyone along the way.

Your definition of “subject” could be liberally applied to all human beings. I mean we are all His creatures, His creation and all are subject to Him.

That’s true, but Baptism is the Sacrament that makes us members of the Body of Christ (His Church). It also gives us full privileges in the Kingdom of God, because it makes us adopted sons and daughters of God. So, we are members of the King’s royal family. While the rest of the people of the world are also His subjects, they do not have the same privileges that we possess by virtue of our Baptism.

Having said all that I agree that their is a vested interest where light, even seeds have been laid down on “children”. But I also no know He died so that not any have to perish and wish all to be saved and is not a respecter of persons. I understand the covenant nature, as in to the Jew first Christ came, yet the Spirit is willing to revive all spirits dead in trespasses and sins.

God doesn’t want anyone to be lost, but that is certainly a very real possibility, even for those of us that might think we’re already ‘saved’.

As to baptism, could it not be that it can be ineffectual just as circumcision was, and is said to be by Peter and Paul.

Of course it’s possible. It makes no difference whether we’re Baptized as babies, or if we’re full grown adults who know exactly what’s required of us when we take those vows. Any of us can lose our salvation, at any point in time. We’re not really saved until we stand in front of the Judgement seat of Christ when we die, and Jesus tells us so. Why do you think Paul says to the Philippians, “with fear and trembling work out your salvation”? If we’re already saved (past tense), then we would have no need to tremble in fear, but Paul clearly says that to the faithful Philippians. That wasn’t the only time he made that statement, or said something similar, either. There must have been a good reason for him to say we should have to do that.

Bottom line all rites and sacraments aside, you must be born again.

We’ve already discussed this. Baptism is the means by which we are reborn in Christ. If someone is Baptized, then they are “born again”.

Blessings

God bless you, ben.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I’m guessing this thread having been forced back on it’s tracks at one point is getting close to entering the station. Some questions I thought about in reading through…

At what point do the consequences for breaking the rules of an entity become coercion?

Is it something like -

No consequences - no coercion (When is there ever no re-action to an action?)

Any consequence - coercion

???

Are ‘free will’ employees really just ‘subjects’ of coercion? Since to continue employment, they are obliged to act per the rules of the entity for which they work?

How is this different from a church? Where members who, to continue membership in full participation, must abide by rules of the church?

Is coercion the smoking word?

Take care,

Hi Mike my friend

AWM is right that this is about those who wish not to be members. As to coercion, I’ve taken that to be “compelled” by “penalties”, especially considering the kind of penalties commonly applied at one time to heretics.

But you’re right about the train. Buffers, I think.

Best wishes

Picky

 

[Telstar]

The canon had to do with people who did not want to continue membership in full participation, and who had not agreed to membership by their own consent, but rather by someone else’s (not just a parent’s) act of requesting or administering baptism. Should they still be compelled by penalties to continue membership and abide by the rules, or could they be allowed to follow “their own will” and leave the religion?

The canon addresses those who question the validity of Infant Baptism by suggesting that something else needs to be done when they become adults, which fails to recognize the Sacrament of Confirmation, that already covers the situation. When a child is raised and properly educated in the Catholic Faith, there is no need for anything else to be asked of them.

I think, Telstar, that you’d agree that God asks us to have a type of intimate, and freely given, connection with both Him and His Church, while one’s citizenship in a country does not require that kind of love. A person can dislike their country and still be a law abiding citizen in good standing. I think maybe a better analogy would be that of a person promised in marriage by their parents while they were still a child, with no consent given by the child. When that child comes of age, should they be asked if they will ratify the promises made on their behalf, and ultimately say “I do” themselves from their own free will, or are they still bound to live out that marriage against their will?

I certainly agree that God requires much more from us than any government on earth. But, as I said above, if a child is raised and properly educated in the Catholic Faith, there should be no reason to have to question him about it. It should be very clear where his heart is focused. The Catholic Faith teaches us that the most important thing in our life should be to love God with our whole heart. The best way to fall in love with God is by talking to Him through our daily prayers. We should also realize that the most important form of prayer for all Catholics is the Mass, where we adore God and receive the Body and Blood of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.

Most faithful Catholics really don’t think about Canon Law very much at all. We’re too busy practicing our Faith to worry about it. We learn a little about it in catechism class while we’re growing up, but by the time we’re adults we should already know what it means to truly love God. We should also understand how to serve God in our daily lives, by loving and serving everyone around us. IMHO, those things are much more important to the development of our spiritual life, than knowing much of anything about Canon Law. As long as we learn what we need to understand about the Mass, and how to practice our spirituality through a healthy prayer life, then everything else will follow.

Catholics that are properly taught the Faith tend to be very spiritually minded folks. Some of us spend a lot of time in prayer, or spiritual reading. God is a very important part of our lives, and most of us really do appreciate everything He does for us. I really feel sorry for Catholics that have been poorly educated about their Faith. I’m certainly well aware that there are some people in the Church that are really not all that spiritually minded, either because they were not properly catechized, or they didn’t have anyone around them that was deeply spiritual.

Some of them may only go to Mass because it’s something that’s expected of them. Many of those might eventually leave the Church. Some may leave for personal reasons, or because something causes them to have doubts. Others might leave because a family member, or a friend, finds another church that they like, so they talk them into following. Some might just stop going to church altogether, because they really don’t care about following any kind of religion. It’s just sad.

 

[Picky_Picky]

…
This is what you said:"Secondly, I would think it disgraceful if those baptised as infants were compelled by church penalties to be bound, on achieving adulthood, by the vows made for them by their sponsors, but in fact I think it highly unlikely that such compulsion is practised, at least in advanced societies, in the 21st century."You said it would be “disgraceful” for the Church to penalize adults for abandoning their vows, if they were Baptized as infants. But, the Church still imposes penalties on Catholics for doing that. She has full authority, and every right to do so.
…

So, I did not say the church behaves disgracefully, but that she would behave disgracefully if she put this canon into effect, and that I did not believe she did any such thing.

Moreover what you go on to say is untrue. I did not say it would be “disgraceful” for the church to penalise adults for abandoning their vows. The canon deals with people who have made no such vows. Moreover I am reluctant to believe that the church imposes what the canon calls “other penalties”, that is penalties other than excommunication.

 

[Picky_Picky]

SyroMalankara—In the analogy I gave, which I think is quite appropriate considering how often the church is spoken of as the Bride of Christ, we would not be talking about an arranged marriage, but a forced marriage, though it started out as a simple arranged marriage. In an arranged marriage, the partners still can say yes or no for themselves. In a forced marriage, a “no” from the prospective bride means nothing–she still will be compelled to marry the man against her will. That’s widely recognized as a violation of basic human rights, whereas an arranged marriage is not; but not only that, it makes a mockery of the idea that God gave us free will to choose to love Him or not. It gets right down to the core of what God desires from us, what His nature is, and what human nature is.

In your first scenario, someone who truly hates his country should probably do whatever he nneds to do to leave it; I spoke of dislike, though, a lesser and more ambivalent attitude. Regardless, my point was that God asks so much more of us than toleration of Himself—He ask us to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. Are we agreed that love cannot be compelled; that, as Xenophon wrote, “What is forced can never be beautiful”?

Nonetheless SyroMalankara’s analogy with state coercion is relevant, because at the time of Trent the state (king and nobles) and the church were, of course, the two bodies in Western Europe mostly possessed of the power to coerce. What has happened to each as they experienced the modern era?

The state: (a) We have allowed it to retain the power to coerce, but on the understanding that we, the people, have power over the state through the democratic system. (b) The state’s powers have been restricted by such means as Bills of Rights, constitutions, checks and balances. (c) In the 20th century we have moved on, to international restrictions on the state, in the form of international or supranational law and law courts.

The church: (a) The coercive authority of the church has declined as its universality has declined. Almost everyone in France is French and in Germany is German. It could not be said any more that almost everyone in the West is Catholic. (b) The leaders of the church have themselves been influenced by Christian humanism and the Enlightenment. It is scarcely possible that a bishop today would want to employ this canon. (c) Although, as we are told often enough, the church is not a democracy, the laity have, nonetheless, acquired the ability to protest. If the clergy attempted to employ this canon the laity would almost certainly not let them get away with it.

So the power of the state to coerce remains. In the church, in practice, spiritual penalties are almost the only ones available. Of course clergy can be disciplined, and sometimes theologians, and the law can be applied within the Vatican City state. But I doubt heretics will face Christian flames again.

 

[benhur]

Don’t mind me if I start singing John Denver’s “Thank God I’m a Melkite.”

I can still see you playin’ your fiddle in your glass house brother.

No, but seriously I need to be fair to be Latin Catholic brethren by pointing out I’m sure that vast majority of them in no way agree with the canon you quoted.

Right, that is what I and most have said here. It is an old canon, still on the books, with no teeth in today’s sentiments.

Sorry. If you reread you will see I agree with you, that C’s do not agree with canon today.

Blessings Country Melkite Boy

 

[Peter_J]

I can still see you playin’ your fiddle in your glass house brother.

I’m not sure if I follow you. Melkite Catholics believe that there have only been 7 ecumenical councils (and the Eastern Orthodox agree with us, oddly enough ). Latin Catholics count 21 (!) ecumenical councils, but I like to think that they are starting to come around to our way of thinking. (This is evidenced by the fact that “the vast majority of them in no way agree with the canon you quoted” – although perhaps I should not have prefaced that with “I need to be fair to my Latin Catholic brethren”, since some of them would not see that as “being fair” and would actually take offense at it. It all depends which side of the canon you’re on.)