The Catholic Church and religious coercion- the smoking gun 2

[benhur]

The teaching is to not partake until after confession.

It is the same teaching as canon 14!

Which means, rejecting God after accepting God in baptism is a grave sin!

It is in the person’s best interest to clean the soul before partaking again, if they choose to return to the Church.

yes , and under canon 14 circumstance, exactly what you say is “anathema”. It is wrong to leave a baptized person in the mortal sin (of rejecting baptismal vows) to their free will and bar him from the sacraments until he repents.

 

[benhur]

i was just thinking about how great canon 14 is for us baptized sinners. (Considering the canon was written in light of 1 Christianity, the Church)

Someone might say, ‘I regret my earlier decision, I wish I knew how to go back’.

Canon 14 - hit the box and welcome back!

The slaughtered lamb is waiting for you! Clean your soul, partake and be full!

Again, canon 14 states what is not to be, not what is

Totally agree, the Lamb is ever ready and willing to receive unto Himself a broken and contrite spirit, even an unbaptized one. Just that we get that from elsewhere other than canon 14.

 

[josie_L]

Droland is indeed implying that, as seen in his continual mention of a papal bull that mentions burning heretics, but that does not once reference this canon. That heretics were burned is not being disputed. That this canon had any effect is unknowable.

Are the canons still in effect? Hmmm. I don’t know. Do you still abstain from blood and strangled animals and meat sacrificed to idols? It’s in the bible, commanded by the Apostles in Acts 15, after all. When were they specifically removed? Are you sinning if you eat a rare steak?

Maybe if we look at current theology, we will find which of them still apply and which don’t. Nowhere in the current catechism does it mention burning heretics. In fact, it states the opposite: a spirit of ecumenism and charity. I also see no restrictions on blood or meat. So it seems Acts 15 is void or no longer applies to this time period. So it seems with burning heretics and many many other disciplines.

So, is eating a rare steak a sin? Do you abide by Acts 15? If not, why are you bringing up a 500 year old canon that applied to a specific time period?

I think there is an error in the way some people perceive canon law, i.e., they think that all canon is somehow writ in stone or rather immutable, which is false:

In the Catholic Church, universal positive ecclesiastical laws, based upon either immutable divine and natural law, or changeable circumstantial and merely positive law, derive formal authority and promulgation from the office of pope, who as Supreme Pontiff possesses the totality of legislative, executive, and judicial power in his person.[2] **The actual subject material of the canons is not just doctrinal or moral in nature, but all-encompassing of the human condition. It has all the ordinary elements of a mature legal system:[3] laws, courts, lawyers, judges,[3] a fully articulated legal code,[4] principles of legal interpretation,[5] and coercive penalties.**6] It lacks civilly-binding force in most secular jurisdictions. The academic degrees in canon law are the J.C.B. (Juris Canonici Baccalaureatus, Bachelor of Canon Law, normally taken as a graduate degree), J.C.L. (Juris Canonici Licentiatus, Licentiate of Canon Law) and the J.C.D. (Juris Canonici Doctor, Doctor of Canon Law), and those with a J.C.L. or higher are usually called “canonists” or “canon lawyers”. Because of its specialized nature, advanced degrees in civil law or theology are normal prerequisites for the study of canon law. Canon law as a field is called canonistics.

I wonder how any Christian here would expect the average Catholic to explain the specified canon (being under attack) definitively when it would require advanced degrees in civil law and theology?

p.s. I have read the canon myself and still do not see what the fuss is about, i.e., I did not gather from what little that was there, that they were referring to capital punishment.

 

[PJM]

=ffg;13045159]It’s funny, I don’t really see the complication.

Consider - a Catholic who commits a mortal sin, something that is a known wrong of grave matter, done intentionally, like say sex outside of marriage. Something Catholics do constantly.

What’s the church teaching regarding partaking at mass? That doing so is a grave sin when in the state of mortal sin.

The teaching is to not partake until after confession.

It is the same teaching as canon 14!

Which means, rejecting God after accepting God in baptism is a grave sin!

It is in the person’s best interest to clean the soul before partaking again, if they choose to return to the Church.

This is the same today as yesterday and all previous days.

Sin is sin, yesterday, today, tomorrow.

Take care,

Mike

To tie this back to the thread, having a rule doesn’t dictate force, and in this case, it is made quite clear in the canon.

NO my friend, the Grave Mortal obligation to participate at Mass is the 3td Commandment and continues in FORCE; what one in Mortal sin CANNOT do is participate in Holy Communion:thumbsup:; BUT they must continue to attend and fulfill their Sunday Obligation.

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[Picky_Picky]

Hi picky,

This is why earlier I said the term anathema is confusing people. One of the best ways to determine meaning is compare it to other Church teaching, can we find similarities. As timing would have it, we have PJM laying in that sub-section up there.

It seems logical, that the object related to at the end of the canon is the baptized person committing the sin.

The key is - for the baptized person who rejects the Church, it seems logical that the first move in confession, if one decides to return, is to discuss not being in union with the Church for x time.

Take care,

Mike

Mike, are you saying you think the person anathematised by the canon is the person baptised as an infant who then rejects the church? Although the form (of this and the rest of the canons) is "If anyone says (xxx) let him be anathema? You don’t see that the person anathematised is the person making the incorrect statement?

 

[ffg]

NO my friend, the Grave Mortal obligation to participate at Mass is the 3td Commandment and continues in FORCE; what one in Mortal sin CANNOT do is participate in Holy Communion:thumbsup:; BUT they must continue to attend and fulfill their Sunday Obligation.

God Bless you,

Patrick

Good point, should have extended ‘at mass’ to be more clear with ‘at mass with communion’ for those that don’t know there are 5 precepts.

When I say partake or not above anywhere pertaining to the Mass it is related to communion.

The first half of one precept being to attend Mass each Sunday and all holy days of obligation…

The correction brings up a great point in this thread in general. That is, we can’t look at canon 14 in a vacuum. Which I was going to touch on later in response.

For those curious, the precepts are in the catechism starting at paragraph 2041, here is a link…
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a3.htm#II

Take care,

Mike

 

[ffg]

Mike, are you saying you think the person anathematised by the canon is the person baptised as an infant who then rejects the church? Although the form (of this and the rest of the canons) is "If anyone says (xxx) let him be anathema? You don’t see that the person anathematised is the person making the incorrect statement?

Hi picky, I think you are on the right track. Let’s play a game and see if we can conquer this…

Our problems with dealing with only the text as translated in old English at some point long ago are a few fold ( assuming the council held in Italy was not chaired and ran by folks from England), but dealing with it in light of what is taught elsewhere helps.

Notice first that the first comma is just that, but the separation for the last is semi colon. Thus, I can’t treat the last as per the first because there are 3 earlier semi’s. So the first would be in relation to an object before the first semi.

So below will be the text as written first, then the game begins…

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.

So if the first saith is related to an object before the first semi, I dig this out of it…

XIV.-If any one saith when they have grown up, and asked whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their names when they were baptized; in case they answer that they will not, they are to be left to their own will; they 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

I think people get confused when word order is not as one is used to after translation. As with a lot of languages after a translation, order of words may look funny, or there could be an extra word not required for meaning, like an extra ‘that’ or two.

Don’t get me wrong I could be way off technically on all of this, but logically considering wrapping in a rounded view, someone can’t be wrong to allow free will. That would mean God would be wrong. I’ll touch on that a bit when I get a moment to respond to Benhur.

Take care,

Mike

 

[Picky_Picky]

Hi picky, I think you are on the right track. Let’s play a game and see if we can conquer this…

Our problems with dealing with only the text as translated in old English at some point long ago are a few fold ( assuming the council held in Italy was not chaired and ran by folks from England), but dealing with it in light of what is taught elsewhere helps.

Notice first that the first comma is just that, but the separation for the last is semi colon. Thus, I can’t treat the last as per the first because there are 3 earlier semi’s. So the first would be in relation to an object before the first semi.

So below will be the text as written first, then the game begins…

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.

So if the first saith is related to an object before the first semi, I dig this out of it…

XIV.-If any one saith when they have grown up, and asked whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their names when they were baptized; in case they answer that they will not, they are to be left to their own will; they 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

I think people get confused when word order is not as one is used to after translation. As with a lot of languages after a translation, order of words may look funny, or there could be an extra word not required for meaning, like an extra ‘that’ or two.

Don’t get me wrong I could be way off technically on all of this, but logically considering wrapping in a rounded view, someone can’t be wrong to allow free will. That would mean God would be wrong. I’ll touch on that a bit when I get a moment to respond to Benhur.

Take care,

Mike

Not so long ago — it’s a C19 translation, I think (I’m so old that seems like yesterday).

Try this version, from EWTN:

Canon 14. If anyone says that those who have been thus baptized when children are, when they have grown up, to be questioned whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their name when they were baptized, and in case they answer in the negative, are to be left to their own will; neither are they to be compelled in the meantime to a Christian life by any penalty other than exclusion from the reception of the Eucharist and the other sacraments, until they repent, let him be anathema.

.

Here you might notice in particular that the person who is anathema is singular “him”, which clearly relates back to the only singular person in the sentence, the “anyone”. The baptised are here in the plural (“those”, “children”, “they”, etc.) so cannot be the “him”.

 

[ffg]

Not so long ago — it’s a C19 translation, I think (I’m so old that seems like yesterday).

Try this version, from EWTN:

.

Here you might notice in particular that the person who is anathema is singular “him”, which clearly relates back to the only singular person in the sentence, the “anyone”. The baptised are here in the plural (“those”, “children”, “they”, etc.) so cannot be the “him”.

What fun would this be without multiple translations and various emphasis?!

I’ll stew a little on that one and the variance. Thank you for posting.

I know you know logically from the Church POV, whatever the emphasis or translation, it has to fit into historical Christian teaching, and not be contrary. Thus the angle of ‘re-emphasizing what is’ per the Church. Inclusive of basic knowledge of Christian teaching (Like God loves, and how that applies to the freedom of the human).

We have to remember the session (and council) starts with a statement of emphasis on clarifying Church teaching over heretical statements, both new and old (at the time, 1547 for session 7). Thus the Canons would logically be a re-emphasis (counter-point) against a stated heresy.

At any rate, it’s important to have those things in the back of the head so we don’t run down a head nodding path that is contrary to Church teaching. Where we miss meaning.

Take care,

Mike

 

[GiveTheTruth]

Luke 18:15-16: "Then they also brought infants to Him that He might touch them; but when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to Him and said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for such is the kingdom of God.”

Is this considered religious coercion? It sounds like evangelical thought corresponds with the disciples who rebuked the people from bringing the infants to Christ.

In the OT God required all boys to be circumcised at 8 day’s of age to enter into the covenant. Was that religious coercion?

1 Cor. 7:14: “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife (believer), and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband (believer); otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are HOLY.”

Sounds a lot like third party faith to me.

FYI, even by following the Lord God’s commands in the OT by circumcising the boys at eight day’s of age was not a guarantee that they would abide in the Lord; hence, 1 Samuel 8:4-5 “Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together and came to Samuel unto Rama and said unto him, 'Behold, thou art old and thy sons walk not in thy ways: Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.”

 

[Picky_Picky]

Luke 18:15-16: "Then they also brought infants to Him that He might touch them; but when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to Him and said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for such is the kingdom of God.”

Is this considered religious coercion? It sounds like evangelical thought corresponds with the disciples who rebuked the people from bringing the infants to Christ.

In the OT God required all boys to be circumcised at 8 day’s of age to enter into the covenant. Was that religious coercion?

1 Cor. 7:14: “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife (believer), and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband (believer); otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are HOLY.”

Sounds a lot like third party faith to me.

FYI, even by following the Lord God’s commands in the OT by circumcising the boys at eight day’s of age was not a guarantee that they would abide in the Lord; hence, 1 Samuel 8:4-5 “Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together and came to Samuel unto Rama and said unto him, 'Behold, thou art old and thy sons walk not in thy ways: Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.”

Those really are not comparable. Look:

Canon 14. If anyone says that those who have been thus baptized when children are, when they have grown up, to be questioned whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their name when they were baptized, and in case they answer in the negative, are to be left to their own will; neither are they to be compelled in the meantime to a Christian life by any penalty other than exclusion from the reception of the Eucharist and the other sacraments, until they repent, let him be anathema.

 

[GiveTheTruth]

Perhaps, I’ve replied too hastily. Be that as it may, unless I am not understanding, it makes perfect sense if one is not recognizing their baptism to not be permitted to partake in the rest of the sacraments until they repent for the bible tells us in Ephesians 4:12:
“One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

Parallel to the OT? Colossians 2:11: “In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.”

The bible is clear that in regards to familial situations that the Lord honor’s third party faith.
Part of accepting their infant baptism is also, in my humble opinion, honoring their father and mother. If they plan on following the Lord, what difference does it make? Before taking holy communion the bible teaches us that we must examine ourselves, to take it worthily, because those who don’t are sick and dying. It seems to me the Church is correct in this matter. If holy communion were just a symbol, people would not have been sick and dying, but that’s a whole other matter to tackle.

I do think the OT requirement of circumcision of male infants correlates. The infants had no choice in the matter until latter in life, and some chose to disregard their entrance into the covenant while others honored their parents decision it. How could they tell their parents, hey, I wasn’t old enough to consent; I want a do over.

A study of the early church fathers, i.e., Faith of our Fathers by Jurgens, Apostolic Fathers by Lightfoot, I do believe supports this practice and seems to have always been what the Church has done.

Thanks for making me think a little. God Bless!

 

[Picky_Picky]

Perhaps, I’ve replied too hastily. Be that as it may, unless I am not understanding, it makes perfect sense if one is not recognizing their baptism to not be permitted to partake in the rest of the sacraments until they repent for the bible tells us in Ephesians 4:12:
“One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

Parallel to the OT? Colossians 2:11: “In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.”

The bible is clear that in regards to familial situations that the Lord honor’s third party faith.
Part of accepting their infant baptism is also, in my humble opinion, honoring their father and mother. If they plan on following the Lord, what difference does it make? Before taking holy communion the bible teaches us that we must examine ourselves, to take it worthily, because those who don’t are sick and dying. It seems to me the Church is correct in this matter. If holy communion were just a symbol, people would not have been sick and dying, but that’s a whole other matter to tackle.

I do think the OT requirement of circumcision of male infants correlates. The infants had no choice in the matter until latter in life, and some chose to disregard their entrance into the covenant while others honored their parents decision it. How could they tell their parents, hey, I wasn’t old enough to consent; I want a do over.

A study of the early church fathers, i.e., Faith of our Fathers by Jurgens, Apostolic Fathers by Lightfoot, I do believe supports this practice and seems to have always been what the Church has done.

Thanks for making me think a little. God Bless!

I’m sure you are right, that it follows as the night the day that someone rejecting as an adult the vows made on their behalf when an infant should be refused the other sacraments until repentance. But the canon goes further, saying such a person may, in addition to being refused the sacraments, also be compelled to live as a Christian by other penalties (undefined).

 

[GiveTheTruth]

I really must have dropped the ball on this one. I need to read more thoroughly next time. I guess they would have to run away if they didn’t want to be a Christian at all. I think during the Council of Trent there was no separation of Church and State, so to speak. I could be wrong, though.

I apologize for being a bible thumper, but Hebrews 13:17 does state, “Obey those who rule over you and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.”

I used to think anathema meant accursed, but it actually means excommunicated.

Thanks for your insight and (name removed by moderator)ut. God Bless!!!

 

[Picky_Picky]

I really must have dropped the ball on this one. I need to read more thoroughly next time. I guess they would have to run away if they didn’t want to be a Christian at all. I think during the Council of Trent there was no separation of Church and State, so to speak. I could be wrong, though.

I apologize for being a bible thumper, but Hebrews 13:17 does state, “Obey those who rule over you and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.”

I used to think anathema meant accursed, but it actually means excommunicated.

Thanks for your insight and (name removed by moderator)ut. God Bless!!!

Nothing to apologise for! And certainly not for quoting the NT, in this of all places!

Best wishes

Picky

 

[Telstar]

I’m sure you are right, that it follows as the night the day that someone rejecting as an adult the vows made on their behalf when an infant should be refused the other sacraments until repentance. But the canon goes further, saying such a person may, in addition to being refused the sacraments, also be compelled to live as a Christian by other penalties (undefined).

Once again, those “penalties” were not ones proposed by the Church, but by Erasmus. He was the one that included all of that extra stuff about punishments, so the Council included all of it so people understood who’s teachings were being addressed, without having to name him. That way, anyone else that believed or promoted any of those ideas would know that they were also engaging in heresy. Since this canon is part of the section that only relates to the Sacrament of Baptism, there is no need to elaborate further, or say anything differently. The entire statement was anathema.

The subject of a grown-up walking away from the Church is an entirely different subject, so there’s no reason to expect it to be addressed in this section of anathemas that address Baptism. That’s the point that I’ve been trying to make all along. The Council was anathematizing what people like Erasmus were proposing, that would have required the Church to make changes to the way the Sacrament was performed, which they refused to do because the Sacrament is not flawed. The Council was basically saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Once again, those “penalties” were not ones proposed by the Church, but by Erasmus. He was the one that included all of that extra stuff about punishments, so the Council included all of it so people understood who’s teachings were being addressed, without having to name him. That way, anyone else that believed or promoted any of those ideas would know that they were also engaging in heresy. Since this canon is part of the section that only relates to the Sacrament of Baptism, there is no need to elaborate further, or say anything differently. The entire statement was anathema.

The subject of a grown-up walking away from the Church is an entirely different subject, so there’s no reason to expect it to be addressed in this section of anathemas that address Baptism. That’s the point that I’ve been trying to make all along. The Council was anathematizing what people like Erasmus were proposing, that would have required the Church to make changes to the way the Sacrament was performed, which they refused to do because the Sacrament is not flawed. The Council was basically saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”.

Telstar–Respectfully, to clarify things: Are you agreeing that Erasmus only proposed one penalty–exclusion from the sacraments until the person repented? Or are you saying that you think he proposed other penalties?

Have you read anything from the two expert Catholic essays that were linked in earlier, from Thomas Pink and John Lamont? It should be clear at this point to everyone exactly what this canon addressed: the propriety of using coercive negative and positive penalties on baptized* Christians (precisely because of the efficacy of the aforementioned [Canon 13] infant baptism) towards living a Christian life, rather than being allowed to leave Christianity with no other penalty than exclusion from the sacraments.

• not coercion into Catholicism of unbaptised persons

 

[AbideWithMe]

• not coercion into Catholicism of unbaptised persons

From my secret diary, written on mouse skins and hidden behind a stone in the wall of my cell:

Sunday, June 14, 2015-- That nefarious and sly British agent, PP, has been taunting us too long now, flaunting his or her shamelessly s-filled “baptising” (sic) ways in our faces. But I have stood strong. I will not betray Uncle Sam!

Monday, June 15, 2015-- Ack! I am lost in a moment of weakness. Can my country ever forgive me?

 

[Telstar]

Telstar–Respectfully, to clarify things: Are you agreeing that Erasmus only proposed one penalty–exclusion from the sacraments until the person repented? Or are you saying that you think he proposed other penalties?

That is what Erasmus proposed (in bold). The Council was verifying that it was this specific proposal, and any others that followed the same line of thinking (such as ‘ratifying vows’), that the canon was condemning. I only used the plural because so many other posters have implied that the Church could decide to impose other unnamed “penalties” against someone that might wish to leave the Church as an adult. That’s a completely different subject that should not be tied to what is written in this canon. The real subject of it is the proposed necessity for someone to “ratify vows” when they grow up. Even the penalty is conditional on that proposed process of ratification, “if they refuse”.

Have you read anything from the two expert Catholic essays that were linked in earlier, from Thomas Pink and John Lamont? It should be clear at this point to everyone exactly what this canon addressed: the propriety of using coercive negative and positive penalties on baptized* Christians (precisely because of the efficacy of the aforementioned [Canon 13] infant baptism) towards living a Christian life, rather than being allowed to leave Christianity with no other penalty than exclusion from the sacraments.

• not coercion into Catholicism of unbaptised persons

Yes, I did read a great deal of what was discussed in those links that were posted. I was planning to comment on them, but this whole discussion has been so frustrating to me, that I chickened out. I just didn’t feel like it was something I could add anything else to, that I haven’t already said before. I really don’t like it when I feel like I’m spinning my wheels, and getting nowhere. I still believe that the mention of ‘penalties’ is being overemphasized by many people commenting on this canon.

If someone wants to discuss the subject of ‘coercion’ in relation to people wishing to leave the Church 500 years ago, then it should not be a discussion specifically connected with this canon. Someone should start another thread specifying that subject, if that’s what they really wish to discuss. After seeing all of the contentious arguments over it in this thread, I would not be inclined to want to engage in that kind of discussion. I doubt it would be very helpful. I prefer to discuss ways for us to heal our relationships with our Christian brothers to bring us closer together, rather than ripping open old wounds that just tear us even further apart.

 

[Picky_Picky]

He’s beginning to crack, Carruthers. Another few days and we’ll try him on “aluminium”.