The Catholic Church and religious coercion- the smoking gun 2

[pacloc]

From the portion On Baptism: “CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that little children, for that they have not actual faith, are not, after having received baptism, to be reckoned amongst the faithful; and that, for this cause, they are to be rebaptized when they have attained to years of discretion; or, that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted, than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be baptized in the faith alone of the Church; let him be anathema.”

Ok, so that’s infant baptism. Despite not having “actual faith” or “years of discretion,” an infant baptism is all the things that any other baptism is. And immediately following this, we come to the smoking gun.

From the Council of Trent, Session 7, the portion On Baptism:
“CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that those who have been thus baptized when children, are, when they have grown up, to be asked whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their names when they were baptized; and that, in case they answer that they will not, they are to be left to their own will; and are not to be compelled meanwhile to a Christian life by any other penalty, save that they be excluded from the participation of the Eucharist, and of the other sacraments, until they repent; let him be anathema.”

That is the smoking gun. That is religious coercion. As if it’s not enough that infants are ushered into Catholic membership through the promise of their sponsors (and evidently that really was not enough for the Trent Magisterium), when cradle Catholics come of age, they shall not be left to their own free will. You might think their only penalty for abandoning the Church would be exclusions from the sacramental life of the Church, but no- they are to be compelled by other penalties as well, by no means shall you just allow them to leave like that, you must get behind the idea that you should compel such a person with penalties other than a basic lack of membership. And if you don’t support that you are anathema.

I have not read through the council in more detail than what is quoted in the opening here, but I do not see a problem with what is written. They are defending what it means to be baptized. You can’t have two different types of baptism, one for infants that can be abandoned without being guilty of apostasy and one for adults that if abandoned means apostasy.

The problem that I believe is causing the argument is that these words only work in a perfect world. I don’t blame them for not conforming to a degraded society, but setting the bar of virtues high, as was done in the early Church. In a perfect world, only true Christians would have the privilege of having their children baptized as an extension of their own baptism (death to the flesh, and life in Christ). It would be ridiculous for a Christian mother and father to raise their children without death to the flesh and life in Christ. In a perfect world the child is actually blessed and well ahead of the curve because of their upbringing which includes their baptism in water.

Now in a perfect world this child that reaches adulthood is more Christian than their parents because they should be even stronger and not have the baggage that comes with grossly sinful life that their parents might have (broken families for example). If this child decides to leave the Church, they are no different than an adult convert that leaves the Church, because they really were dead to the world and made alive in the Spirit, and have now gone back to death. They have crucified Christ again, and are in a very dangerous position.

Again this is all fine in a perfect world, which I do believe is very possible. In reality a whole lot of infants have been baptized without their parents being truly Christian, which changes the whole thing. How can the child be guilty for being lost and finding another religion when they never were taught true Christianity? It creates a problem that I think the Church now caters to, by not being too harsh on people abandoning the Catholic Church because they might not know the circumstance. I really think what the council was trying to do was explain the seriousness and realness of baptizing infants. You are always free to be a fool, but there will always be consequences, namely not entering into God’s kingdom. This seems to be the penalty that the council is hinting toward.

 

[benhur]

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.)

Just counter jesting, that although this thread is more CC/P thing,you can easily be included in other topics of contention. But thanks,I know zippo about Melkites save your fascinating info.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

If this child decides to leave the Church, they are no different than an adult convert that leaves the Church, because they really were dead to the world and made alive in the Spirit, and have now gone back to death. They have crucified Christ again, and are in a very dangerous position.

Good stuff but this caught my eye. Understand that is CC position, that even in an imperfect world, a baptized infant is alive in spirit, born again. The reformation challenged that “box”. While they do not deny that a child may indeed be alive in spirit , he also just as well may not be born again. That is, hanging out in a garage does not automatically turn you into a car.

There is a difference between apostasy and never really being born again and continue in the flesh rejecting parental spiritual values.

Of course rejectors of the Truth will be judged by the light that they have been given. So one never really having a christian upbringing will be judged differently than one who has.

How can the child be guilty for being lost and finding another religion when they never were taught true Christianity?

The reformers were asking how can one be born again without being taught true Christianity ?

I really think what the council was trying to do was explain the seriousness and realness of baptizing infants.

Agreed but also the seriousness of going against the CC.

You are always free to be a fool, but there will always be consequences, namely not entering into God’s kingdom. This seems to be the penalty that the council is hinting toward.

Unfortunately your last is not your best and disagree with what was being hinted at, but I did enjoy your (name removed by moderator)ut and demeanor. Thanks.

Blessings

 

[ericc]

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?).

Canon 14 appears to anathematize “supporters” of the baptismal vow breakers but does not itself prescribe the baptismal vow breakers any form of penalties as such. Hence, baptismal vow breakers can theoretically say “I renounce God and joining the satanic club down the street” , the Church is powerless to do anything. But those within the Church who “supports” the freewill of the vow breakers can be punished because of their encouraging wrong behavior.

Similar penalties for those advocating the freewill of those to commit abortion.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Canon 14 appears to anathematize “supporters” of the baptismal vow breakers but does not itself prescribe the baptismal vow breakers any form of penalties as such. Hence, baptismal vow breakers can theoretically say “I renounce God and joining the satanic club down the street” , the Church is powerless to do anything. But those within the Church who “supports” the freewill of the vow breakers can be punished because of their encouraging wrong behavior.

Similar penalties for those advocating the freewill of those to commit abortion.

Well, you have just anathematised yourself. It is, the canon says, anathema to allege what you have alleged: that “baptismal vow breakers can theoretically say “I renounce God and joining the satanic club down the street” , the Church is powerless to do anything.”

And that shows why your reading of the canon is mistaken. By anathematising the saying of “xxx” the canon is ruling that “xxx” is untrue. In this case, the “xxx” that is untrue is that “baptismal vow breakers” cannot be compelled to live by their broken vows. The canon is clear that the Church is not powerless, but can compel.

 

[ericc]

Well, you have just anathematized yourself.

What canon did I violate? Going around proclaiming guilt many times doesn’t make it true.

It is, the canon says, anathema to allege what you have alleged: that “baptismal vow breakers can theoretically say “I renounce God and joining the satanic club down the street” , the Church is powerless to do anything.”

There is a distinct difference between actual vow breaking vs anyone who says it is alright for the vow breakers to do that. One does the act, the other condones it. I did not promote vow breaking. I am not vow breaking either. So somehow I am guilty of anathematizing myself. For which violation if I may ask? I am highlighting that the canon didn’t say the church is penalizing the vow breakers; the Church is penalizing the supporters of the vow breakers by anathematizing these supporters ( and not through unspecified penalties).

You keep on repeating unspecified penalties. Slapping one’s face with a wet hanky can be a penalty; spending hours at a church charity, doing specific prayers x number of times can be a penalty, fasting can be a penalty but that is a far cry from calling it coercion. That’s why I ask, what penalties are compelled that amount to coercion. Actual, not implied, not possibilities. In clear and non-ambiguous words. I have asked this question a number of times but i didn’t get a response.

And that shows why your reading of the canon is mistaken.

Then show what mistake have I committed.

By anathematising the saying of “xxx” the canon is ruling that “xxx” is untrue. In this case, the “xxx” that is untrue is that “baptismal vow breakers” cannot be compelled to live by their broken vows. .

That is fallacious reasoning. Your reasoning may be true if there is no other alternate explanations. If you have multiple answers, the answer can be one of the above, a combination, all or none of the above. The language did not state whether the Church agrees or disagrees with any , some or all of those statements from the vow breaker supporters. Agreeing, disagreeing, keeping silent, neutral stance, don’t have an answer, no opinion are all possibilities. But the language clearly prohibits such statements. You assume it must necessarily be a true/untrue situation when there is no necessity for that conclusion.

The canon is clear that the Church is not powerless, but can compel

What instrument can the Church use to “compel” who to do what? Details. In the absence of prescribed penalties, that is really a moot point. Yes, yes you can do something, but if the law does not provide for secular penalties, you got nothing. Fires of hell is not in the secular penalties. Having a judgement without specific penalty is as good as watching a movie or reading a book while everyone is screaming "Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!

Your reading show a specific conclusion in favour of your inkblot. By anathematizing these supporters, my inkblot says the Church is not permitting these folks from prescribing judgement, penalties, conditions for these baptismal vow breakers. The Church is saying to these supporters; these proclamations are not of your jurisdiction. Do NOT make such statements, you have no authority to make such doctrinal statements.

So, what is your issue?
a) You don’t agree that the Church has a right to regulate the behavior of its members
b) the right of the Church to anathematized its members
etc?

There are no words uttered by this canon that specifically coerced the vow breakers to remain “un-broken”. For your charge of coercion to stick, you need to show evidence of that the Church somehow has the compelling force to coerce someone from NOT breaking their infant baptismal vows.

I used the example of abortion supporters. If these supporters were to say " it is alright to exercise your freewill to abort, and that the penalty is xxx, they are going to get anathematized. The Church will not let unauthorized persons make unapproved doctrinal statements. Not only unapproved, but something that She detests.

The Church obviously takes baptismal vows seriously, one of which is to renounce the Devil, among other things. Supporters of these vow breakers can therefore be seen as to be not anti-Devil anymore, especially if the vow breaker is joining the satanic sect down the street. (I chose an extreme example to highlight the situation.)

So the question is whether you will concede that there are alternative views of Canon 14? Or you believe your view is the only correct one?

 

[Picky_Picky]

What canon did I violate? Going around proclaiming guilt many times doesn’t make it true.

Canon XIV On Baptism, Trent seventh session

There is a distinct difference between actual vow breaking vs anyone who says it is alright for the vow breakers to do that. One does the act, the other condones it. I did not promote vow breaking. I am not vow breaking either. So somehow I am guilty of anathematizing myself. For which violation if I may ask? I am highlighting that the canon didn’t say the church is penalizing the vow breakers; the Church is penalizing the supporters of the vow breakers by anathematizing these supporters ( and not through unspecified penalties).

No, the Church is anathematising those who say one can renounce ones baptismal vows without penalty (other than excommunication), which is what you said in your post.

You keep on repeating unspecified penalties. Slapping one’s face with a wet hanky can be a penalty; spending hours at a church charity, doing specific prayers x number of times can be a penalty, fasting can be a penalty but that is a far cry from calling it coercion. That’s why I ask, what penalties are compelled that amount to coercion. Actual, not implied, not possibilities. In clear and non-ambiguous words. I have asked this question a number of times but i didn’t get a response.

It is not possible to specify what penalties the canon envisages, because the canon does not specify them, just “other penalties”.

Then show what mistake have I committed.

That is fallacious reasoning. Your reasoning may be true if there is no other alternate explanations. If you have multiple answers, the answer can be one of the above, a combination, all or none of the above. The language did not state whether the Church agrees or disagrees with any , some or all of those statements from the vow breaker supporters. Agreeing, disagreeing, keeping silent, neutral stance, don’t have an answer, no opinion are all possibilities. But the language clearly prohibits such statements. You assume it must necessarily be a true/untrue situation when there is no necessity for that conclusion.

All the canons of Trent are in the formula “If any one saith (xx) let him be anathema” or “if any one denieth (xx) let him be anathema”. They are not canon after canon which omit to state whether the Church agrees or disagrees with (xx). They are saying (xx) is wrong (in the “saith” cases) and (xx) is right (in the “denieth” cases). I’m sorry, but there is no “other alternate explanation” that makes any sense. Read through Trent and see.

What instrument can the Church use to “compel” who to do what? Details. In the absence of prescribed penalties, that is really a moot point. Yes, yes you can do something, but if the law does not provide for secular penalties, you got nothing. Fires of hell is not in the secular penalties. Having a judgement without specific penalty is as good as watching a movie or reading a book while everyone is screaming "Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!

At the time of Trent the Church had very considerable powers to coerce, up to and including handing heretics over to the civil authorities for execution. Her powers are now more limited, of course.

Your reading show a specific conclusion in favour of your inkblot. By anathematizing these supporters, my inkblot says the Church is not permitting these folks from prescribing judgement, penalties, conditions for these baptismal vow breakers. The Church is saying to these supporters; these proclamations are not of your jurisdiction. Do NOT make such statements, you have no authority to make such doctrinal statements.

So, what is your issue?
a) You don’t agree that the Church has a right to regulate the behavior of its members
b) the right of the Church to anathematized its members
etc?

There are no words uttered by this canon that specifically coerced the vow breakers to remain “un-broken”. For your charge of coercion to stick, you need to show evidence of that the Church somehow has the compelling force to coerce someone from NOT breaking their infant baptismal vows.

I used the example of abortion supporters. If these supporters were to say " it is alright to exercise your freewill to abort, and that the penalty is xxx, they are going to get anathematized. The Church will not let unauthorized persons make unapproved doctrinal statements. Not only unapproved, but something that She detests.

The Church obviously takes baptismal vows seriously, one of which is to renounce the Devil, among other things. Supporters of these vow breakers can therefore be seen as to be not anti-Devil anymore, especially if the vow breaker is joining the satanic sect down the street. (I chose an extreme example to highlight the situation.)

So the question is whether you will concede that there are alternative views of Canon 14? Or you believe your view is the only correct one?

I have no issue other than arguing against (what I see as) unreason. I do not concede that there is an alternative view of the canon that holds water.

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius:

That’s your smoking gun, a council from 500 years ago? In case you aren’t familiar with the “smoking gun” colloquialism, the implication is that something has recently transpired. Something from 500 years ago is simply not a smoking gun.

I’m sorry, but if you want an in depth discussion, get something from a something where the people involved can argue the point with you.
It might be easier to win an argument with people who are 500 years dead because they can’t argue back, but it is really intellectually dishonest.

Not really. He’s arguing that it is a smoking gun because it was an ecumenical council and it was in the canons of the council. T.

Actually, the metaphor is used to indicate that something is very recent, that is, while the gun is still smoking.
I don’t know how familiar you are with fire arms, but they only smoke for a couple of seconds after the shot is fired. So, if you find a smoking gun, it has just now been fired, that’s the whole point of the expression “a smoking gun”

 

[Picky_Picky]

Actually, the metaphor is used to indicate that something is very recent, that is, while the gun is still smoking.
I don’t know how familiar you are with fire arms, but they only smoke for a couple of seconds after the shot is fired. So, if you find a smoking gun, it has just now been fired, that’s the whole point of the expression “a smoking gun”

Well, I think actually it means “obviously conclusive evidence” such as would be supplied by finding the murderer with the smoking gun still in his hand (it seems from Conan Doyle’s The Adventure of the Gloria Scott). But I grant that the metaphor works much better if the gun hasn’t been smoking away for 500 years.

 

[ffg]

Thanks AWM and Picky for the responses.

It seems there is a huge unwritten assumption in ‘I don’t want to be there’ -

Not wanting to be a part of a group, does not have a consequence.

As a foundation we should first display examples where there is no consequence in the act of withdrawing.

The problem here, is that the devil is in the details. Any example can be countered with a detail that could conclude the opposite.

To say ‘my choice only affects me’ in withdrawing (or almost any situation), regardless of the group, seems like a very difficult thing to defend.

Then to get specific with Christianity, a core teaching is that Christian’s make up a single entity, ‘a body’, the ‘Body of Christ’.

Thus, removing a member would have implications for the member (ex: removal of life-giving blood) and the remaining body (wound / not whole).

Family is also a core teaching ( ‘Our Father’ vs ‘Our God’).

Strong families pull and teach, not push and ignore.

As has been laid out in this thread to support ‘coercion’, the easy counter is harsh treatment in discipline (the action of consequence).

The fine line with harsh treatment, even inclusive of the attribute of ‘incorrect’ (remember ‘sinners’ would still be behind decisions, even popes go to confession)…

is that in a family - any treatment displays concern (even poor, illogical treatment from a confused heart, which concludes in separation rather than healing).

No treatment (or ignoring) displays an uncaring heart (a source of separation vs the outcome of separation).

Take care,

Mike

 

[Telstar]

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.

My point is that it’s still a valid canon that remains in effect, to this very day! So, you most certainly are calling the Church “disgraceful”, because She still recognizes it as effective. That’s why I said what I did. I also realize that what you perceive as the way you think the Church would be acting in a “disgraceful” manner, is due to your own misunderstanding of the canon. The only reason anyone has a problem with it, is because they persist in believing that their misinterpretations are correct. People are getting hung up on the wording, especially of the supposed “implications” that they believe are found in the second half of it. Then, they twist that to conjure up all kinds of ridiculous images in their mind’s eye, like the burning of heretics.

What I’m saying is that you are all reading things into that canon that were never intended to be there, in the first place. But, no one that believes the misinterpretation seems to be willing the take the blinders off of their eyes. I have to believe that it’s because of their preconceived notions about the Catholic Church, that have been spread far and wide by the uninformed for so many years. So, they always look at the Church through suspicious eyes. They look everywhere for some kind of hidden or secret meaning, or an ulterior motive, in everything She ever says or does. For Heaven’s sake, “The Da Vinci Code” is a pathetic example of pure conspiratorial BS, that seems to be turning everyone that’s not Catholic (and even some who are) into some kind of “Catholic secret code breaker”! What the hell?

The Council uses statements made by Erasmus to declare that there is no reason, whatsoever, for anyone to be required to “ratify” their Baptismal vows “when they grow up”. They also use his very statements as an example to show that no one, not even a Priest, has any authority to propose what kinds of penalties or punishments that they think the Church should apply to Her members, especially in regards to any situation that isn’t specifically part of their own responsibilities.

The Church is not proposing any penalties. This is where everyone is going completely off the rails and getting all of their strange ideas for hypothetical scenarios that they think those penalties “might” apply to. They fail to recognize the fact that all of those proposed penalties come from Erasmus, and not from the Church. This whole thread clearly shows what can happen when some Joe Schmuck (especially a Priest that should know better) decides to tell members of the Church what She should do, and makes public statements about their personal opinions, like Erasmus did. It just causes people to foster doubts about their faith, and about the Church, then instigates heated arguments like this one that serve no real spiritual purpose. All it does is cause friction, instead of promoting peace, between the people of God.

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.

I’ve made it abundantly clear that those individuals have freely taken those Baptismal vows for themselves by receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation, where they are required to renew their Baptismal promises on their own behalf."CCC 1321 When Confirmation is celebrated separately from Baptism, its connection with Baptism is expressed, among other ways, by the renewal of baptismal promises. The celebration of Confirmation during the Eucharist helps underline the unity of the sacraments of Christian initiation*."

** the sacraments of Christian initiation are Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Communion*
(all emphasis mine… T)This canon is merely using what Erasmus proposed, to make a point. The Church is not saying that any part of that statement is true. In fact, the Council says that anyone who chooses to agree with what Erasmus stated, is acting in a heretical manner, and, if they persist in their heretical beliefs, then they will be excommunicated from the Church. That’s all there is to it. There is no other hidden or underlying meaning involved in it.

 

[Ignatius]

M It does pose problems, possibly, for those who maintain the council as being infallible. Since if it was, it’s true Christian dogma and must be enforced. .

Not everything spoken on by Councils is Dogma. Councils can also speak on matters of discipline, and that’s what this is.

 

[Picky_Picky]

My point is that it’s still a valid canon that remains in effect, to this very day! So, you most certainly are calling the Church “disgraceful”, because She still recognizes it as effective. That’s why I said what I did. I also realize that what you perceive as the way you think the Church would be acting in a “disgraceful” manner, is due to your own misunderstanding of the canon. The only reason anyone has a problem with it, is because they persist in believing that their misinterpretations are correct. People are getting hung up on the wording, especially of the supposed “implications” that they believe are found in the second half of it. Then, they twist that to conjure up all kinds of ridiculous images in their mind’s eye, like the burning of heretics.

What I’m saying is that you are all reading things into that canon that were never intended to be there, in the first place. But, no one that believes the misinterpretation seems to be willing the take the blinders off of their eyes. I have to believe that it’s because of their preconceived notions about the Catholic Church, that have been spread far and wide by the uninformed for so many years. So, they always look at the Church through suspicious eyes. They look everywhere for some kind of hidden or secret meaning, or an ulterior motive, in everything She ever says or does. For Heaven’s sake, “The Da Vinci Code” is a pathetic example of pure conspiratorial BS, that seems to be turning everyone that’s not Catholic (and even some who are) into some kind of “Catholic secret code breaker”! What the hell?

The Council uses statements made by Erasmus to declare that there is no reason, whatsoever, for anyone to be required to “ratify” their Baptismal vows “when they grow up”. They also use his very statements as an example to show that no one, not even a Priest, has any authority to propose what kinds of penalties or punishments that they think the Church should apply to Her members, especially in regards to any situation that isn’t specifically part of their own responsibilities.

The Church is not proposing any penalties. This is where everyone is going completely off the rails and getting all of their strange ideas for hypothetical scenarios that they think those penalties “might” apply to. They fail to recognize the fact that all of those proposed penalties come from Erasmus, and not from the Church. This whole thread clearly shows what can happen when some Joe Schmuck (especially a Priest that should know better) decides to tell members of the Church what She should do, and makes public statements about their personal opinions, like Erasmus did. It just causes people to foster doubts about their faith, and about the Church, then instigates heated arguments like this one that serve no real spiritual purpose. All it does is cause friction, instead of promoting peace, between the people of God.

I’ve made it abundantly clear that those individuals have freely taken those Baptismal vows for themselves by receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation, where they are required to renew their Baptismal promises on their own behalf."CCC 1321 When Confirmation is celebrated separately from Baptism, its connection with Baptism is expressed, among other ways, by the renewal of baptismal promises. The celebration of Confirmation during the Eucharist helps underline the unity of the sacraments of Christian initiation*."

** the sacraments of Christian initiation are Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Communion*
(all emphasis mine… T)This canon is merely using what Erasmus proposed, to make a point. The Church is not saying that any part of that statement is true. In fact, the Council says that anyone who chooses to agree with what Erasmus stated, is acting in a heretical manner, and, if they persist in their heretical beliefs, then they will be excommunicated from the Church. That’s all there is to it. There is no other hidden or underlying meaning involved in it.

There is no hidden or secret meaning. The plain meaning is plain. In my opinion you have it wrong.

But you come close to it in your last paragraph. The canon says it is wrong to say — it is anathema to say — that someone baptised as an infant should be asked at adulthood if she/he wishes to accept the vows made on his /her behalf, and (it is wrong to say) that if she/he says “no” she/he should be left alone and not subjected to penalties other than excommunication.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Thanks AWM and Picky for the responses.

It seems there is a huge unwritten assumption in ‘I don’t want to be there’ -

Not wanting to be a part of a group, does not have a consequence.

As a foundation we should first display examples where there is no consequence in the act of withdrawing.

The problem here, is that the devil is in the details. Any example can be countered with a detail that could conclude the opposite.

To say ‘my choice only affects me’ in withdrawing (or almost any situation), regardless of the group, seems like a very difficult thing to defend.

Then to get specific with Christianity, a core teaching is that Christian’s make up a single entity, ‘a body’, the ‘Body of Christ’.

Thus, removing a member would have implications for the member (ex: removal of life-giving blood) and the remaining body (wound / not whole).

Family is also a core teaching ( ‘Our Father’ vs ‘Our God’).

Strong families pull and teach, not push and ignore.

As has been laid out in this thread to support ‘coercion’, the easy counter is harsh treatment in discipline (the action of consequence).

The fine line with harsh treatment, even inclusive of the attribute of ‘incorrect’ (remember ‘sinners’ would still be behind decisions, even popes go to confession)…

is that in a family - any treatment displays concern (even poor, illogical treatment from a confused heart, which concludes in separation rather than healing).

No treatment (or ignoring) displays an uncaring heart (a source of separation vs the outcome of separation).

Take care,

Mike

Sorry, Mike, but I’ve a horrible suspicion that what you are saying is that if a member of a Christian family decides they don’t believe, the caring thing is to compel them to behave as if they do.

Please tell me I’ve interpreted you wrongly!

Best wishes

Pocky

 

[ffg]

Sorry, Mike, but I’ve a horrible suspicion that what you are saying is that if a member of a Christian family decides they don’t believe, the caring thing is to compel them to behave as if they do.

Please tell me I’ve interpreted you wrongly!

Best wishes

Pocky

Hi picky,

This is where I wish we could read many points instantaneously, as the depth could help in understanding, vs point A for today, point B tomorrow disconnected from today’s discussion.

If I understand properly, you are assuming the discipline that might come from withdrawing, to be a brain wash of convincing?

We can rest easy!

Let’s consider Christianity teaches to love, and love does not force itself or a response.

In this light, we should be able to conclude any discipline would not entail brain washing.

I hope this helps.

Off to coach a doubleheader!

Take care,

Mike

 

[Telstar]

But you come close to it in your last paragraph. The canon says it is wrong to say — it is anathema to say — that someone baptised as an infant should be asked at adulthood if she/he wishes to accept the vows made on his /her behalf, and (it is wrong to say) that if she/he says “no” she/he should be left alone and not subjected to penalties other than excommunication.

If I can never ask you a question, why should I expect you to answer it? Do you realize how absolutely ridiculous that sounds?

Please… answer the question I didn’t ask you.

 

[benhur]

Canon 14 appears to anathematize “supporters” of the baptismal vow breakers but does not itself prescribe the baptismal vow breakers any form of penalties as such. Hence, baptismal vow breakers can theoretically say “I renounce God and joining the satanic club down the street” , the Church is powerless to do anything. But those within the Church who “supports” the freewill of the vow breakers can be punished because of their encouraging wrong behavior.

Similar penalties for those advocating the freewill of those to commit abortion.

Yikes, Lutherans, reformers were supporters of baptismal vow breakers, even encouraging them ?

Seems like your entire post is a smoking gun. Like they encouraged vow breaking by only excommunicating them (sacramentally barred) !

Just how do you stop free will to avoid anathemizing ???

How do you stop free will so as not to encourage vow breaking ?

 

[AbideWithMe]

If I can never ask you a question, why should I expect you to answer it? Do you realize how absolutely ridiculous that sounds?

Please… answer the question I didn’t ask you.

Telstar—Erasmus made his proposal in positive form, such as, “Here is a question which I (Erasmus) propose we (the Church) ask those former infants who are now grown up, so of their own will they can answer; since I (Erasmus) realize there is some risk of getting a “no” answer if we (the Church) allow these grown ups to answer for themselves, then in that case here is my (Erasmus’) proposal of how we (the Church, in whose service I [Erasmus] am a theologian), should treat them.” The Council condemned the entire positive proposal in all its parts=Erasmus’ proposed question itself + Erasmus’ contingency plan if the question was answered with a “no”.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Hi picky,

This is where I wish we could read many points instantaneously, as the depth could help in understanding, vs point A for today, point B tomorrow disconnected from today’s discussion.

If I understand properly, you are assuming the discipline that might come from withdrawing, to be a brain wash of convincing?

We can rest easy!

Let’s consider Christianity teaches to love, and love does not force itself or a response.

In this light, we should be able to conclude any discipline would not entail brain washing.

I hope this helps.

Off to coach a doubleheader!

Take care,

Mike

No, I hadn’t got brainwashing in mind, but I’m glad that’s ruled out!

No, we’re dealing here with an adult, baptised as a child, who in adulthood does not wish to be/remain a Christian. Do I understand you aright, that you think discipline should be imposed on this adult to make him conform? Surely not?

 

[ericc]

Yikes, Lutherans, reformers were supporters of baptismal vow breakers, even encouraging them ?

Seems like your entire post is a smoking gun. Like they encouraged vow breaking by only excommunicating them (sacramentally barred) !

Just how do you stop free will to avoid anathemizing ???

How do you stop free will so as not to encourage vow breaking ?

I’m sorry my words didn’t seem to put my point across well. Perhaps if I restate it another way, it may seems clearer.

The canon didn’t encourage vow breaking, it was to discourage supporters from making doctrinal statements/punishments/conditions on vow breakers.

That is my intended message. I apologize if anyone read it differently.

No you can’t stop free will to avoid anathematizing. If one commit abortion, that can get you excommed. If one were to encourage another to get an abortion, that is not ok. If a Catholic were to abuse the Eucharist, that can get him excommed.

If there are other unclear statements, let me know and I will correct/restate them.