The Catholic Church and religious coercion- the smoking gun 2

[bjryman]

More than likely because it is no longer enforced. 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. At least, inasmuch as the articles in opposition to sola fide and sola scriptura are.

If one reads the complete history of the Vatican II process, the debate among the Church fathers shows how two camps were present in the Church of that time. One retained the top down papal monarchy (and by association, absolute right of Curia) on all things. The other camps reasserted the concept of collegiality, especially as it pertained to local Bishop discretion and teaching in a positive non-condeming way. i.e. no anathemas.

Only today are the faithful beginning to feel the real value of Vatican II…why? Because many of the absolutist, monarcial cardinals and bishops are moving on to the next life. Meanwhile, those with the same thoughts and actions as Pope Francis are moving to the forefront. A somewhat unintended consequence of all this is an acknowledgement that many of the Protestant “rubrics” are valid and more “early church-like” and should be embraced. This fact remains a problem for older Catholics…as still does much of Vatcan II. So one might ask…where is today’s younger generation taking the Church?

 

[RCCB]

The smoking gun . . .

That smoking gun, ‘baptism’ may yet turn out to be the achilles heel of the church. For among the non-canonical scriptures the ‘church’ decided not to include in the canon are references to three baptisms. One of water, one of fire and one of spirit. And as if to deceive the reader, most references in the Bible don’t make a clear distinction which is which or what the others may mean. If this most primary of all sacramental claims made by the church has been misunderstood, the entire church could easily collapse!

 

[PRmerger]

That smoking gun, ‘baptism’ may yet turn out to be the achilles heel of the church. For among the non-canonical scriptures the ‘church’ decided not to include in the canon are references to three baptisms. One of water, one of fire and one of spirit. And as if to deceive the reader, most references in the Bible don’t make a clear distinction which is which or what the others may mean. If this most primary of all sacramental claims made by the church has been misunderstood, the entire church could easily collapse!

Not sure if you’re saying that the Church was correct in excluding the non-canonical Scriptures, or incorrect?

What is your opinion on this?

 

[Novocastrian]

Only today are the faithful beginning to feel the real value of Vatican II…why? Because many of the absolutist, monarcial cardinals and bishops are moving on to the next life. Meanwhile, those with the same thoughts and actions as Pope Francis are moving to the forefront

This outsider thinks, with all due respect to his person and office, that Francis looks like the most ultramontane and absolutist pope since Pio Nono.

 

[Peter_J]

Very good job, benhur—a discussion on the canon from experts speaking within their own fields of competence.

Experts? Fields of competence? What are you, some kind of crazy old-fashioned elitist-Christian-person?

 

[ffg]

Got it. I was reacting to the anathema on kicking out. Another words with canon logic God would be anathemized for “kicking out”. And hence thought you preferred to say Adam kicked himself out.
Do not think I was circular with the effect (punishment /excommunication as in no sacraments) being anathemized. But yes that would be circular but still cause and effect to say, “if you excommunicate someone for breaking baptismal vows you yourself are also excommunicated.”. Many think that is how canon 14 could be read.(if anathemizing is also excommunicating, which is also barring from sacraments)

Got it, and as you said , God did not force Adam back into the Garden
yes,most here are in agreement in today's context. However  what was the context at Trent ? Do you think it is wrong to allow free will to leave church  and wrong then to bar from sacraments thereafter until repentance (believing again)? Again many here argue that is what Trent said but that it is not mainstream desire today.

Blessings

Well Benhur (May I call you Ben?), you did it.

It probably hasn’t been noticed much on here, but I like to discuss from a different perspective than the academics. Maybe it’s an itch against my father who was a career student for a while and spent 40 years in academics, teaching and administration, both in schools and career development for corporations.

Or perhaps it’s because if Peter the fisherman could communicate what is necessary through what he learned in 3 years (plus obviously, the advantage of that Pentecost), I can take a shot in my small way.

At any rate, what you did is wake me up to want to do a little reading.

I’ve been pouring over Vatican docs and archives the last couple of days. As well as a few other sites for balance. I’m building a response here, but I’m trying to cut things down and be concise. I’m also doing it in between real life things.

I obviously, don’t want to write anything where I would be the object of Anathema.

So, know I haven’t forgotten about you.

A couple of logistic items,

I think for the first couple of times, I tried that multi-quote thing in this thread, I don’t like it because I think it is too easy to lose context which leads to 100 conversations between 2 people, that never tie together. So I’m going to stop.

An itch - Anathema - for the sake of discussion, it seems in the context the Church uses, excommunicate works, I think Anathema is causing circles to be spun.

I’ll be back, hopefully later today, but surely, I’ll have time tomorrow.

Thank you for your questions.

Mike

 

[benhur]

Well Benhur (May I call you Ben?), you did it.

Try this firstthings.com/article/2012/08/conscience-and-coercion.

Deals with Vat 2 and “Human Dignity” and the issue we discuss here. Have not read it all myself either.

Or rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/01/discussing-or-ignoring-thomas-pinks.html which gives some reactions to Thomas Pink .It seems some Catholic theologians are for Him and some against and apparently there is division amongst them on this topic.

or exlaodicea.wordpress.com/2011/08/06/thomas-pink-religious-liberty-and-the-coercion-of-the-baptised/-very short.

 

[benhur]

Experts? Fields of competence? What are you, some kind of crazy old-fashioned elitist-Christian-person?

Hey, I resemble that remark (except for the elitist part).

 

[AbideWithMe]

Well Benhur (May I call you Ben?), you did it.

It probably hasn’t been noticed much on here, but I like to discuss from a different perspective than the academics. Maybe it’s an itch against my father who was a career student for a while and spent 40 years in academics, teaching and administration, both in schools and career development for corporations.

Or perhaps it’s because if Peter the fisherman could communicate what is necessary through what he learned in 3 years (plus obviously, the advantage of that Pentecost), I can take a shot in my small way.

At any rate, what you did is wake me up to want to do a little reading.

I’ve been pouring over Vatican docs and archives the last couple of days. As well as a few other sites for balance. I’m building a response here, but I’m trying to cut things down and be concise. I’m also doing it in between real life things.

I obviously, don’t want to write anything where I would be the object of Anathema.

So, know I haven’t forgotten about you.

A couple of logistic items,

I think for the first couple of times, I tried that multi-quote thing in this thread, I don’t like it because I think it is too easy to lose context which leads to 100 conversations between 2 people, that never tie together. So I’m going to stop.

An itch - Anathema - for the sake of discussion, it seems in the context the Church uses, excommunicate works, I think Anathema is causing circles to be spun.

I’ll be back, hopefully later today, but surely, I’ll have time tomorrow.

Thank you for your questions.

Mike

Try this firstthings.com/article/2012/08/conscience-and-coercion.

Deals with Vat 2 and “Human Dignity” and the issue we discuss here. Have not read it all myself either.

Or rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/01/discussing-or-ignoring-thomas-pinks.html which gives some reactions to Thomas Pink .It seems some Catholic theologians are for Him and some against and apparently there is division amongst them on this topic.

or exlaodicea.wordpress.com/2011/08/06/thomas-pink-religious-liberty-and-the-coercion-of-the-baptised/-very short.

Ffg and benhur, others—

More helpful stuff to read, benhur–thanks. From my end, I’ve got things I’m wrapped up in “in real life”, too, plus I like to mull over what I read. I’d like to keep the discussion going, but I’m in no hurry.

 

[ericc]

OK.Of course the policy of barring from sacraments vow breakers was "alright’ to some but not to others hence the anathema.

While the language of the canon indicate the barring of sacraments came from those advocating to leave the vow breakers to their own will, the language did not specify whether the Church agree or disagree to the barring of sacraments or to the leaving the vow breakers to their own will or to the condition that the vow breakers could resume the sacraments upon their repentance. So far the language as I can make out is clear only to bar those advocating these policies with anathema. Sorry to nitpick, but I didn’t want to create the impression that anathema was for the barring of sacraments as you allude to.

 

[Picky_Picky]

While the language of the canon indicate the barring of sacraments came from those advocating to leave the vow breakers to their own will, the language did not specify whether the Church agree or disagree to the barring of sacraments or to the leaving the vow breakers to their own will or to the condition that the vow breakers could resume the sacraments upon their repentance. So far the language as I can make out is clear only to bar those advocating these policies with anathema. Sorry to nitpick, but I didn’t want to create the impression that anathema was for the barring of sacraments as you allude to.

You have then moved from the position that the canon simply objects to unauthorised statements about matters of doctrine, and are now in, how shall I put it, a more Telstarian position?

 

[RCCB]

Not sure if you’re saying that the Church was correct in excluding the non-canonical Scriptures, or incorrect?

What is your opinion on this?

Speaking as an ex catholic who does not except theology as a valid human intellectual project.

Of course there is no record of any specific revelation ever being passed on to form an institutional church, and pre-Nicea, there was not even any agreement upon what Christ and his apostles taught or what scriptures were valid or authentic. The ‘theological’ choice made at a fraught and controversial council and deemed ‘canonical’ was necessary only to impose a uniformity necessary for a centralized institutional church, backed by a the power and bankroll of secular emperor.

We have witnessed the discoveries of new scriptural materials since the 1950’s. The Nag Hammadi LIbrary and the Dead Sea Scrolls and I understand there is a new set of lead codices still waiting scientific examination. What is self evident is that the scriptural record is incomplete. What more may still be discovered? And thus any theological understanding remains suspect. Canonical or not, If the ‘church’ was founded upon an incomplete scriptural record, which appears to be the case, with questions of whether natural reason can even comprehend the mind of God from them, its primary claims become a nonsense!

 

[AbideWithMe]

That smoking gun, ‘baptism’ may yet turn out to be the achilles heel of the church. For among the non-canonical scriptures the ‘church’ decided not to include in the canon are references to three baptisms. One of water, one of fire and one of spirit. And as if to deceive the reader, most references in the Bible don’t make a clear distinction which is which or what the others may mean. If this most primary of all sacramental claims made by the church has been misunderstood, the entire church could easily collapse!

Speaking as an ex catholic who does not except theology as a valid human intellectual project.

Of course there is no record of any specific revelation ever being passed on to form an institutional church, and pre-Nicea, there was not even any agreement upon what Christ and his apostles taught or what scriptures were valid or authentic. The ‘theological’ choice made at a fraught and controversial council and deemed ‘canonical’ was necessary only to impose a uniformity necessary for a centralized institutional church, backed by a the power and bankroll of secular emperor.

We have witnessed the discoveries of new scriptural materials since the 1950’s. The Nag Hammadi LIbrary and the Dead Sea Scrolls and I understand there is a new set of lead codices still waiting scientific examination. What is self evident is that the scriptural record is incomplete. What more may still be discovered? And thus any theological understanding remains suspect. Canonical or not, If the ‘church’ was founded upon an incomplete scriptural record, which appears to be the case, with questions of whether natural reason can even comprehend the mind of God from them, its primary claims become a nonsense!

RCCB—Please start a new thread for your topic and don’t derail this one.

 

[PRmerger]

Speaking as an ex catholic who does not except theology as a valid human intellectual project.

Of course there is no record of any specific revelation ever being passed on to form an institutional church, and pre-Nicea, there was not even any agreement upon what Christ and his apostles taught or what scriptures were valid or authentic. The ‘theological’ choice made at a fraught and controversial council and deemed ‘canonical’ was necessary only to impose a uniformity necessary for a centralized institutional church, backed by a the power and bankroll of secular emperor.

We have witnessed the discoveries of new scriptural materials since the 1950’s. The Nag Hammadi LIbrary and the Dead Sea Scrolls and I understand there is a new set of lead codices still waiting scientific examination. What is self evident is that the scriptural record is incomplete. What more may still be discovered? And thus any theological understanding remains suspect. Canonical or not, If the ‘church’ was founded upon an incomplete scriptural record, which appears to be the case, with questions of whether natural reason can even comprehend the mind of God from them, its primary claims become a nonsense!

So then do you believe in the physical resurrection of Christ?

 

[ericc]

You have then moved from the position that the canon simply objects to unauthorised statements about matters of doctrine, and are now in, how shall I put it, a more Telstarian position?

Not at all. My position remains on unauthorized statements. However, what remains silent, should be read as silent rather than assume silence were to mean something else. When we don’t have the background to this canon, I think it prudent not to assume when there is no necessity to. Of course I do understand why one would like to take a stance supporting their agenda. So bottom line, these are the words, let us take it at face value what the words say. The words didn’t say that, so let us just keep it at that as well.

Another reason why going outside of these rules of “engagement” is that we just end up talking past each other, each assuming situations that are possible and favorable to one’s position but would be quite a fruitless journey. Actually my intent was just to inform the OP that the words do not in itself support his contention of coercion. That’s all. I didn’t know it is going to drag this long!LOL.

 

[AbideWithMe]

So then do you believe in the physical resurrection of Christ?

I hate to be a wet blanket, but before you both invest more time in this new topic:

“Messages posted to threads should be on-topic. If you wish to discuss another topic, start a new thread.”—from the Forum Rules link at top right.

 

[AbideWithMe]

When we don’t have the background to this canon, I think it prudent not to assume when there is no necessity to.

Eric–Do you believe that no-one has the background to this canon? Did you have the time to read the link to Thomas Pink’s essay which gave some background to the canon? What do you think?

 

[Denise1957]

Try this firstthings.com/article/2012/08/conscience-and-coercion.

Deals with Vat 2 and “Human Dignity” and the issue we discuss here. Have not read it all myself either.

Or rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/01/discussing-or-ignoring-thomas-pinks.html which gives some reactions to Thomas Pink .It seems some Catholic theologians are for Him and some against and apparently there is division amongst them on this topic.

or exlaodicea.wordpress.com/2011/08/06/thomas-pink-religious-liberty-and-the-coercion-of-the-baptised/-very short.

What is it that you see as important in the essay by Thomas Pink? Is it only that there is some division amongst Catholics on the topic? Well, that’s been known for some time now.

 

[AbideWithMe]

What is it that you see as important in the essay by Thomas Pink? Is it only that there is some division amongst Catholics on the topic? Well, that’s been known for some time now.

There’s an earlier link from benhur to a book with Thomas Pink’s essay—I don’t know if you saw that, Denise. The last link here from benhur is sending me (maybe it’s working for other people…my Android tablet can be weird) to a different article at exlaodicea for some reason, instead of “Thomas Pink, Religious Liberty and the Coercion of the Baptised”, which refers back to the canon we’re discussing, plus other earlier canons about the CC’s right to coerce the baptized to compel them to live as Christians. That article at exlaodicea contains two links itself which lead to Pink’s entire essay available online. It’s 50 pages, but I’m going to be reading it.

 

[Denise1957]

There’s an earlier link from benhur to a book with Thomas Pink’s essay—I don’t know if you saw that, Denise. The last link here from benhur is sending me (maybe it’s working for other people…my Android tablet can be weird) to a different article at exlaodicea for some reason, instead of “Thomas Pink, Religious Liberty and the Coercion of the Baptised”, which refers back to the canon we’re discussing, plus other earlier canons about the CC’s right to coerce the baptized to compel them to live as Christians. That article at exlaodicea contains two links itself which lead to Pink’s entire essay available online. It’s 50 pages, but I’m going to be reading it.

Thank you. What I’m trying to find out is this: what is it, exactly, that non-Catholics here are trying to extrapolate from the writings of Thomas Pink?

I’d not read any of Pink’s writings until seeing this thread yesterday. But I’ve read though a couple of his writings since then, and have to wonder why a non-Catholic would see his views as being consistent with non-Catholic views, because I’m not really seeing it.