The Catholic Church and religious coercion- the smoking gun 2

[Picky_Picky]

Hi Picky,

It’s pretty difficult to ignore context and understand intent.

In the council, we know:

~The Church is addressing heresies.
~The Church is excommunicating, or confirming excommunication of heretics.
~The Church is making an effort to protect the identity of Christianity as 1 Christian religion, as stated in the opening of the council.

We wouldn’t be talking about Canon on Baptism #14 if it fell in line with the pattern. It would be nice if it was either stated or translated better than it seems.

Please explain how the ‘anyone’ is the heretic. This would help in understanding the pattern doesn’t break.

The intent of the Canon is going to fall in line with historical Christianity, that’s the purpose of the council, to protect that 1 identity.

At the end of the day, in 14 - rejecting the Church after Baptism is a sin. That’s the specific point being addressed.

Let’s see what the CCC says about this…

Paragraph 679 second half:
“By rejecting grace in this life, one already judges oneself, receives according to one’s works, and can even condemn oneself for all eternity by rejecting the Spirit of love.”

Other CCC quotes on rejecting:

386      Sin is present in human history; any attempt to ignore it or to give this dark reality other names would be futile. To try to understand what sin is, one must first recognize the profound relation of man to God, for only in this relationship is the evil of sin unmasked in its true identity as humanity’s rejection of God and opposition to him, even as it continues to weigh heavy on human life and history.

1864    “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.”136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss. 

29      But this “intimate and vital bond of man to God” (GS 19,1) can be forgotten, overlooked, or even explicitly rejected by man.3 Such attitudes can have different causes: revolt against evil in the world; religious ignorance or indifference; the cares and riches of this world; the scandal of bad example on the part of believers; currents of thought hostile to religion; finally, that attitude of sinful man which makes him hide from God out of fear and flee his call.

1792    Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1021    Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.592 The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul—a destiny which can be different for some and for others.

2140  Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the first commandment.

2125 second half: “Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion.”

I shall compose a reply of startling lucidity and persuasiveness. Even for one with my massive intellect that may take a little time. Thanks for staying with this, Mike.

Picky

 

[Telstar]

Hi Picky,

It’s pretty difficult to ignore context and understand intent.

In the council, we know:

~The Church is addressing heresies.
~The Church is excommunicating, or confirming excommunication of heretics.
~The Church is making an effort to protect the identity of Christianity as 1 Christian religion, as stated in the opening of the council.

We wouldn’t be talking about Canon on Baptism #14 if it fell in line with the pattern. It would be nice if it was either stated or translated in a fashion more easily understood.

Please explain how the ‘anyone’ is the heretic. This would help in understanding the pattern doesn’t break.

The intent of the Canon is going to fall in line with historical Christianity, that’s the purpose of the council, to protect that 1 identity.

At the end of the day, in 14 - rejecting the Church after Baptism is a sin. That’s the specific point being addressed.

Let’s see what the CCC says about this…

Paragraph 679 second half:
“By rejecting grace in this life, one already judges oneself, receives according to one’s works, and can even condemn oneself for all eternity by rejecting the Spirit of love.”

Other CCC quotes on rejecting:

386      Sin is present in human history; any attempt to ignore it or to give this dark reality other names would be futile. To try to understand what sin is, one must first recognize the profound relation of man to God, for only in this relationship is the evil of sin unmasked in its true identity as humanity’s rejection of God and opposition to him, even as it continues to weigh heavy on human life and history.

1864    “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.”136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss. 

29      But this “intimate and vital bond of man to God” (GS 19,1) can be forgotten, overlooked, or even explicitly rejected by man.3 Such attitudes can have different causes: revolt against evil in the world; religious ignorance or indifference; the cares and riches of this world; the scandal of bad example on the part of believers; currents of thought hostile to religion; finally, that attitude of sinful man which makes him hide from God out of fear and flee his call.

1792    Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.592 The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul—a destiny which can be different for some and for others.

2140  Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the first commandment.

2125 second half: “Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion.”

Hi, Mike.

I have to go along with Picky as far as “anyone” being the one that’s anathematized in the canon. You seem to be falling into the same trap of considering someone being asked whether they affirm their Baptismal vows, as being the main point of the canon. It’s not. The main point is that no one has a right to ask anyone to affirm those vows when they grow up, because there is no possible way to ever reverse a Christian Baptism, whether it’s performed by the Catholic Church or not. People can’t ask for a “do-over”.

However, your quotes from the CCC about rejecting God (which we certainly do when we reject our Baptism) help to explain another reason that the Church may have included the rest of Erasmus’ statement in this canon (other than the fact that it was part of the original statement, and that Erasmus was overstepping his authority by proposing any penalties, or none). It is a very serious mortal sin for us to reject God, especially after we’re Baptized into the Body of Christ. This is why the Council was so adamant about trying to stop what was happening with those who were falling away from the True Catholic Faith. They wanted to protect them from the possibility of losing their souls in the process, which I hope all Christians would agree, is a fate far worse than the death of the body.

Unfortunately, those on the other side of the aisle who are looking at the canon from the perspective of hind-sight, might think that those were not the Council’s intentions at all. That kind narrow perspective is what causes questions like these to be raised, and the ensuing arguments to become heated. Because some of us, just can’t seem to see the other side of the issue. I’m afraid that’s also what caused the original problem to get blown so far out of proportion, with all the "he said, “she said”, attitudes of all those involved.

The only one that’s really pleased with the final outcome, is the one that gains the most from fracturing the Body of Christ. He’s happy as a clam.

 

[benhur]

Hi Benhur,

Sorry it’s been so long.

To say…

“It is wrong to leave a baptized person in the mortal sin (of rejecting baptismal vows) to their free will” …

…is to say God is wrong.

I’m sure you don’t intend this, please correct me where I’m mistaken.

Thanks,

Mike

Hi ffg

been so long i do not get your question ? I think we are just trying to be right and not wrong on what canon 14 is actually saying.

 

[benhur]

I have to go along with Picky as far as “anyone” being the one that’s anathematized in the canon. You seem to be falling into the same trap of considering someone being asked whether they affirm their Baptismal vows, as being the main point of the canon. It’s not. The main point is that no one has a right to ask anyone to affirm those vows when they grow up, because there is no possible way to ever reverse a Christian Baptism, whether it’s performed by the Catholic Church or not. People can’t ask for a “do-over”.

Hi T. yes the previous two canons deal with makeovers, and as anathema

However, your quotes from the CCC about rejecting God (which we certainly do when we reject our Baptism) help to explain another reason that the Church may have included the rest of Erasmus’ statement in this canon (other than the fact that it was part of the original statement, and that Erasmus was overstepping his authority by proposing any penalties, or none)

Yes, canon 14 seems to be dealing with Erasmus, but not from the perspective forcing a do over, but what to do with someone who rejects ratifying what had been given them as infant.

It is a very serious mortal sin for us to reject God, especially after we’re Baptized into the Body of Christ.

But not serious enough to ask if they do reject God and His baptism ?

This is why the Council was so adamant about trying to stop what was happening with those who were falling away from the True Catholic Faith.

And how do you stop them from falling away? Erasmus surely had no problem with Catholic clergy asking the question and imposing his recommended penalty. We can not assume he meant for it to be only asked by heretics and non Catholics(Lutherans).

 

[Telstar]

Hi T. yes the previous two canons deal with makeovers, and as anathema

Hi, ben.

This canon actually refers back to the previous one when it says “those thus Baptized” (“as infants” as it says in 13) because they are related to the same line of thinking, which is to question the validity of Infant Baptism by requiring adults to verify their vows.

Yes, canon 14 seems to be dealing with Erasmus, but not from the perspective forcing a do over, but what to do with someone who rejects ratifying what had been given them as infant.

The person that hypothetically “rejects” their Baptism is not the one being anathematized in this canon. It’s the “anyone” that says “those thus Baptized” should be questioned that’s anathematized.

But not serious enough to ask if they do reject God and His baptism ?

The Council says that no one has any right to ever ask someone if they reject their Baptism, because it’s impossible to do that, anyway. The whole premise is ridiculous. Baptism is permanent. Jesus doesn’t just give souls back if they change their minds. They belong to Him, forever. If they choose to walk away, then they have to accept the consequences of their actions. Jesus will still judge them as His own, even though they chose to turn their back on Him, and walked away. It won’t be the Church that will punish them, but Jesus will judge them accordingly on the Last Day. But, Jesus will never actually give up on them. He will continue to try to draw them back, every single day.

And how do you stop them from falling away? Erasmus surely had no problem with Catholic clergy asking the question and imposing his recommended penalty. We can not assume he meant for it to be only asked by heretics and non Catholics(Lutherans).

Erasmus was an individual Catholic, not much different than me. What he personally believed was irrelevant, because the Church Magisterium (which the Council represents) is the only authority that can make those kinds of decisions. The point is, Erasmus was proposing that the Church should formally ask “those thus Baptized” to ratify their vows. That’s exactly what he said in his statement. The Council declared that whole idea to be heretical.

Let me put it to you this way. If any individual walked up to you and asked you to ratify your Baptismal vows to them, would you feel obliged to answer that kind of question, from some random member of your church? Is it any of their business to question your faith in God, at all? No! It’s not! That’s between you and God. What purpose would it serve?

How do you keep them from walking away? By trying to reason with them, and seriously talking to them about it. By reminding them that their Baptism means that they belong to Jesus, Who gave His life on the cross to save them; because He loves them enough to do it all over again, just for them. By praying very hard for them, even to the point of begging them to change their mind. But, if all of that fails, then you have to let them go. But, you have to continue to hope and pray that at some point they’ll realize the great love that they’ve lost by walking away from Jesus, particularly in the Blessed Sacrament. Even if it takes them until their last breath before they have a change of heart, and ask God to forgive them, we will always have that hope in our own hearts that one day it might just happen. We can never give up on people we love.

What would you do if your own brother, or your best friend, told you they were walking away from God? Would you just kick them in the butt before they left, or would you try to talk them out of it?

 

[AbideWithMe]

Hi, ben.

This canon actually refers back to the previous one when it says “those thus Baptized” (“as infants” as it says in 13) because they are related to the same line of thinking, which is to question the validity of Infant Baptism by requiring adults to verify their vows.

The person that hypothetically “rejects” their Baptism is not the one being anathematized in this canon. It’s the “anyone” that says “those thus Baptized” should be questioned that’s anathematized.

The Council says that no one has any right to ever ask someone if they reject their Baptism, because it’s impossible to do that, anyway. The whole premise is ridiculous. Baptism is permanent. Jesus doesn’t just give souls back if they change their minds. They belong to Him, forever. If they choose to walk away, then they have to accept the consequences of their actions. Jesus will still judge them as His own, even though they chose to turn their back on Him, and walked away. It won’t be the Church that will punish them, but Jesus will judge them accordingly on the Last Day. But, Jesus will never actually give up on them. He will continue to try to draw them back, every single day.

Erasmus was an individual Catholic, not much different than me. What he personally believed was irrelevant, because the Church Magisterium (which the Council represents) is the only authority that can make those kinds of decisions. The point is, Erasmus was proposing that the Church should formally ask “those thus Baptized” to ratify their vows. That’s exactly what he said in his statement. The Council declared that whole idea to be heretical.

Let me put it to you this way. If any individual walked up to you and asked you to ratify your Baptismal vows to them, would you feel obliged to answer that kind of question, from some random member of your church? Is it any of their business to question your faith in God, at all? No! It’s not! That’s between you and God. What purpose would it serve?

How do you keep them from walking away? By trying to reason with them, and seriously talking to them about it. By reminding them that their Baptism means that they belong to Jesus, Who gave His life on the cross to save them; because He loves them enough to do it all over again, just for them. By praying very hard for them, even to the point of begging them to change their mind. But, if all of that fails, then you have to let them go. But, you have to continue to hope and pray that at some point they’ll realize the great love that they’ve lost by walking away from Jesus, particularly in the Blessed Sacrament. Even if it takes them until their last breath before they have a change of heart, and ask God to forgive them, we will always have that hope in our own hearts that one day it might just happen. We can never give up on people we love.

What would you do if your own brother, or your best friend, told you they were walking away from God? Would you just kick them in the butt before they left, or would you try to talk them out of it?

Hi Telstar–

Erasmus wasn’t simply a person just like us in his professional capacity; he was one of the primary Catholic theologians in service to the Catholic Church. As such, he submitting his proposals to the Church for consideration. That was his calling—like Augustine, like Aquinas, to turn his brilliant mind towards further elucidating and developing the Church’s understanding of God.

I think one of the main reasons we have been at loggerheads over the interpretation of this canon is not because of diabolical influence as you imply. No. It’s because Erasmus—that good man, God bless him—has so influenced modern thought that people are unaware of how much our collective thinking on ethics has changed.

I’m looking forward to Picky Picky’s response to Mike, but, meanwhile, please, please folks, read both Pink’s and Lamont’s essays on this very subject that people have spent so much time trying to force into their own amateur interpretation. I haven’t completely finished them myself, but they’re not dense reading even if they’re not quick reading. I’m baffled that the Catholic posters on this thread seem to prefer to ignore the offering of professionals like Pink and Lamont while simultaneously admitting that this subject isn’t their own field of expertise.

 

[ffg]

Hi, Mike.

I have to go along with Picky as far as “anyone” being the one that’s anathematized in the canon. You seem to be falling into the same trap of considering someone being asked whether they affirm their Baptismal vows, as being the main point of the canon. It’s not. The main point is that no one has a right to ask anyone to affirm those vows when they grow up, because there is no possible way to ever reverse a Christian Baptism, whether it’s performed by the Catholic Church or not. People can’t ask for a “do-over”.

Hi Telstar,

Interesting.

I like the idea that the person is thinking of an ‘undo’ vs a reject. Church might see a rejection, person might see an undo.

Per the Church though, as in that first extra CCC quote, sin is sin, and sin is real. We can fool ourselves into falsehoods easily.

I think I know where you are going in that baptism is irreversible so there is no point to the question, so don’t ask…

However, I guess we get into a definition issue…

It seems we affirm our baptismal vows at some masses throughout the year and other ceremonial occasions. Is that not a priest (the church?) asking us to affirm our vows?

There has to be more of a twist to the intent of the Canon.

If it is “The main point is that no one has a right to ask anyone to affirm those vows” , I need more to link that into a heretical action.

Thanks,

Mike

 

[benhur]

Hi Telstar–

Erasmus wasn’t simply a person just like us in his professional capacity; he was one of the primary Catholic theologians in service to the Catholic Church. As such, he submitting his proposals to the Church for consideration. That was his calling—like Augustine, like Aquinas, to turn his brilliant mind towards further elucidating and developing the Church’s understanding of God.

I think one of the main reasons we have been at loggerheads over the interpretation of this canon is not because of diabolical influence as you imply. No. It’s because Erasmus—that good man, God bless him—has so influenced modern thought that people are unaware of how much our collective thinking on ethics has changed.

I’m looking forward to Picky Picky’s response to Mike, but, meanwhile, please, please folks, read both Pink’s and Lamont’s essays on this very subject that people have spent so much time trying to force into their own amateur interpretation. I haven’t completely finished them myself, but they’re not dense reading even if they’re not quick reading. I’m baffled that the Catholic posters on this thread seem to prefer to ignore the offering of professionals like Pink and Lamont while simultaneously admitting that this subject isn’t their own field of expertise.

Thanks for being a little more on top than me.

I think Erasmus was a “peace maker” of sorts. I think he tried to reconcile the church and perhaps some of the reformers , on this baptismal/penalties issue. He was not stupid. He could see the efficacy of baptism both pro and con. He could see the negative effects of compulsion/penalties that had been in effect for a millennia. I think he makes a rational bridge between the two parties and it was the CC that stonewalled this peaceful rational move/proposition.

" just can’t seem to see the other side of the issue",… That kind narrow perspective,… fracturing the Body of Christ." as Telestar posts against reformed thinking which easily comes back to CC also. It takes to two tango and two to fracture. I suggest Erasmus was in the middle and his proposition was anathemized before the world.

 

[benhur]

This canon actually refers back to the previous one when it says “those thus Baptized” (“as infants” as it says in 13) because they are related to the same line of thinking, which is to question the validity of Infant Baptism by requiring adults to verify their vows.

Do not think 14 refers back to previous with the thus baptized.The thus baptized refers to children as , " that those who have been thus baptized when children". I will agree it is related to the other two but does not necessarily question the efficacy of baptism like the previous two certainly do. it may tie into confirmation as well or more, which are the next three canons. So 14 is a bit different than rebaptizing etc.

The person that hypothetically “rejects” their Baptism is not the one being anathematized in this canon.

Yes, was not saying they were

.It’s the “anyone” that says “those thus Baptized” should be questioned that’s anathematized.

Got to disagree T, or at least it is more. For example the canon does not anathemize the ratifying of the vows, that is the affirmative answer to the question. That would contradict confirmation also. Another words, it is a package canon, a package wrongdoing, beginning with the question all the way thru the negative response and freewill and limited penalty.

Baptism is permanent.

Correct, and Erasmus was not proposing anything different.

If they choose to walk away, then they have to accept the consequences of their actions.

Again, that is part of the package and deals with the earthly consequences. The canon anathemizes the proposal’s ( by Erasmus) consequences

It won’t be the Church that will punish them,

Punish? That is not in the canon but anathemizes the package that includes the church taking away sacraments until repentance. The church does (did) give "consequences’’ some would say punishment, and it could be civil and monetary at least for a millennia up to Trent.

He will continue to try to draw them back, every single day.

Correct, even during their time turned over to Satan (per Paul) or an excommunication, or barring from sacraments only, as per Erasmus proposal, that was shot down.

Erasmus was an individual Catholic, not much different than me.

T, Picky answered this quite well. He was different in capacity and office in CC.

What he personally believed was irrelevant,

What Erasmus proposed was made "irrelevant’’ with obvious anathemizing of it.

The point is, Erasmus was proposing that the Church should formally ask “those thus Baptized” to ratify their vows. That’s exactly what he said in his statement. The Council declared that whole idea to be heretical.

Well and more. Have not read actual proposal or can’t quite recall but it dealt with more of the negative response, free will and penalty. Otherwise you begin mixing in confirmation. And Erasmus was not against the church posing the question, and may have had that intention, hence I say it was more about free will and penalties than asking the question(by** the Church**.)

Let me put it to you this way. If any individual walked up to you and asked you to ratify your Baptismal vows to them, would you feel obliged to answer that kind of question, from some random member of your church? Is it any of their business to question your faith in God, at all? No! It’s not! That’s between you and God. What purpose would it serve?

At some point I guess an individual could ask, even a pastor or priest, especially if I were not living as if i were born again or kept the vows personally. I mean we are a body and there is a right time and a right word to try and restore a lost sheep.

But, if all of that fails, then you have to let them go.

To their free will ? Again you answer as most of us would today but we both know the pre-Trent church could do more than you suggest.

What would you do if your own brother, or your best friend, told you they were walking away from God? Would you just kick them in the butt before they left, or would you try to talk them out of it?

If they indeed have walked away do you think it wrong to bar from sacraments until repentance, even while trying to talk them back ?

 

[Picky_Picky]

What a business! A few lines from Trent, and half a thousand posts on … what does it mean?

It didn’t help that the first version we saw was a 19th century translation using those mock-antique saiths and denieths that Victorian Englishmen thought carried an aura of holiness. The EWTN version was easier. But still it was wordy.

The form was an invitation to confusion: the heresy was worded as positive, then knocked down by the negative “let him be anathema”, so that several readers saw "are to be left to their own will; neither are they to be compelled in the meantime” and said “where’s the compulsion: it says they are not to be compelled”. By a nice touch of irony they were defending the church for a doctrine it had in fact declared heretical.

Then there was the complicated syntax – an enveloping sentence of conditional clause and main clause, the conditional clause containing embedded subordinate clauses – which was especially impenetrable if, like me, you were trying to read it on an iPhone4.

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.

Nonetheless, once the Erasmus link was revealed it was clear to most that we had a canon saying “If anyone says [what Erasmus said] let him be anathema”. Telstar had an unusual approach to this. She insisted that the canon included a stretch of words which Trent intended the reader to ignore – the words "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” – more than half the canon.

That’s a curious idea. The canon could easily have said "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, let him be anathema.” But no, it went on and on about what would happen if the question were asked and if the answer were negative.

(to be continued)

 

[Picky_Picky]

(continued)

Telstar’s justification for her reading was that the segment beginning “and in case they answer in the negative …” only comes into play if the previous segment about questioning them remains in play, and that since that question is not to be asked, we can ignore the warning of what might happen if it were answered. This doesn’t hold water, I fear. The canon does not describe a situation where the question is not asked; on the contrary the situation it posits is one where the question is (heretically) asked and is heretically answered. In fact the two parts of Erasmus’s idea are clearly interlinked, and Trent wanted to condemn both.

Mike (ffg) wanted to change the whole form of the canon. Trent, as it happens, was productive, and we have many examples of the genre of Trent canon. They are all either of the form “If anyone says [heretical statement] let him be anathema” or of the form “If anyone denies [orthodox statement] let him be anathema”. Mike asks me why I believe Trent on Baptism Canon 14 could not be an exception to this general form. That does not seem to me a reasonable request. If Mike believes Canon 14 to be an exception, it is for him to explain why,

What Mike wants to do is say the “him” who is anathema does not refer to the “anyone” who says what Erasmus said. Mike wants the “him” to refer to the “they” who decline to confirm the baptismal vows. There are two sound grammatical reasons why this cannot be so.

First, of course, is the numerical disagreement between the singular “him” and the plural “they”.

Second is the fact that Mike’s idea produces a syntactical error. In the Trent form, “let him be anathema” is the main clause which tells us what happens if the condition in the conditional clause (“if anyone says etc etc”) is met. If Mike wants it to refer to the baptised person, it must instead fall within the clauses which tell us what happens when the baptised person declines to confirm the vows. They become:

"[they] 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 (sic) be anathema”.

And the whole canon has now no main clause to tell us what happens “If anyone says …”, it becomes a syntactical mess.

(to be continued)

 

[Picky_Picky]

(continued)

Why is it that so much heavy weather has been made of interpreting this canon? I think it is because in this canon we find the church of the late Middle Ages doing something, teaching something, which we modern post-Enlightenment people don’t like. Because we are unhappy with admitting this, we seek ever more peculiar readings to deny the truth. Just as in a previous thread someone tried to explain away Leo X’s condemnation of Luther for opposing the burning of heretics by saying it was nothing of the sort, just a condemnation of Luther for presuming to know the Holy Spirit’s opinion, so someone in this thread tried to explain away canon 14 as simply a condemnation of anyone expressing any unauthorised opinion. Then Telstar had her abbreviated Erasmus and Mike his ungrammatical and exceptional canon.

I do not mean to imply by this that posters here have been disingenuous. Telstar clearly believes her explanation, and I have no doubt at all of Mike’s sincerity. But I think Telstar and Mike and others are disturbed by the thought that the church could coerce people into remaining Catholics, and their minds seek some other explanation for the words.

In fact the reason for the canon is straightforward. Erasmus said (or suggested for consideration, as he later put it) that people baptised in infancy should be able to decline to confirm the baptismal vows without facing any other penalty that denial of the sacraments.

As New Advent says

the Council of Trent solemnly defines the doctrine of infant baptism (Sess. VII, can. xiii). It also condemns (can. xiv) the opinion of Erasmus that those who had been baptized in infancy, should be left free to ratify or reject the baptismal promises after they had become adult.

That Erasmus’s suggestion was objectionable to the church is not to be surprised at. It raised a question over the permanent mark which baptism, infant or otherwise, was believed to set upon the baptised, whereby they were prevented from quitting membership of the church and therefore their subjection to its discipline; and it raised a question over the church’s right to discipline and coerce Christians. Both questions had to be dispelled.

 

[AbideWithMe]

(continued)

Why is it that so much heavy weather has been made of interpreting this canon? I think it is because in this canon we find the church of the late Middle Ages doing something, teaching something, which we modern post-Enlightenment people don’t like. Because we are unhappy with admitting this, we seek ever more peculiar readings to deny the truth. Just as in a previous thread someone tried to explain away Leo X’s condemnation of Luther for opposing the burning of heretics by saying it was nothing of the sort, just a condemnation of Luther for presuming to know the Holy Spirit’s opinion, so someone in this thread tried to explain away canon 14 as simply a condemnation of anyone expressing any unauthorised opinion. Then Telstar had her abbreviated Erasmus and Mike his ungrammatical and exceptional canon.

I do not mean to imply by this that posters here have been disingenuous. Telstar clearly believes her explanation, and I have no doubt at all of Mike’s sincerity. But I think Telstar and Mike and others are disturbed by the thought that the church could coerce people into remaining Catholics, and their minds seek some other explanation for the words.

In fact the reason for the canon is straightforward. Erasmus said (or suggested for consideration, as he later put it) that people baptised in infancy should be able to decline to confirm the baptismal vows without facing any other penalty that denial of the sacraments.

As New Advent says

That Erasmus’s suggestion was objectionable to the church is not to be surprised at. It raised a question over the permanent mark which baptism, infant or otherwise, was believed to set upon the baptised, whereby they were prevented from quitting membership of the church and therefore their subjection to its discipline; and it raised a question over the church’s right to discipline and coerce Christians. Both questions had to be dispelled.

Well done in being thorough, patient and gracious.

 

[benhur]

Well done in being thorough, patient and gracious.

Ditto

 

[GKC]

I don’t intend to offer a Dufflepudian endorsement (of which I’ve seen a surfeit, here and there), but I’ve followed the thread, and the earlier Exsurge Domine one, in which I participated, a little) and I agree. I concede to all participants an effort to honestly explicate the words, and I award the Turing Untangling Cup to Picky; Contarini, honorary mention.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I don’t intend to offer a Dufflepudian endorsement (of which I’ve seen a surfeit, here and there), but I’ve followed the thread, and the earlier Exsurge Domine one, in which I participated, a little) and I agree. I concede to all participants an effort to honestly explicate the words, and I award the Turing Untangling Cup to Picky; Contarini, honorary mention.

and lastly I would like to thank my lovely wife, without whom my children would not be the people they are.

 

[GKC]

and lastly I would like to thank my lovely wife, without whom my children would not be the people they are.

So say we all.

 

[ProdigalSun]

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."

Really? this sounds like coercion to you?

" Hey Dad". “Yes Son”? “My adopted son does want anything to do with me. I brought him into the family when he was a babe and gave him nourishment and love and now as an adult he says he wants nothing to do with me. What can I do to make him come back to our family and love It”?

“Leave him to his own will, Do not give him any other penalty other than not allowing him to eat at your table, watch your TV, or sleep under your roof. Have him leave your house and pray he comes to his senses.”

Coercion? I don’t think so!

That smoking gun is shoot’n blanks!

 

[Picky_Picky]

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."

Really? this sounds like coercion to you?

" Hey Dad". “Yes Son”? “My adopted son does want anything to do with me. I brought him into the family when he was a babe and gave him nourishment and love and now as an adult he says he wants nothing to do with me. What can I do to make him come back to our family and love It”?

“Leave him to his own will, Do not give him any other penalty other than not allowing him to eat at your table, watch your TV, or sleep under your roof. Have him leave your house and pray he comes to his senses.”

Coercion? I don’t think so!

That smoking gun is shoot’n blanks!

Oh my ears and whiskers. PS, we’ve been over this ground. The view that “they are to be left to their own will” is the view the canon anathematises.

 

[ProdigalSun]

Oh my ears and whiskers. PS, we’ve been over this ground. The view that “they are to be left to their own will” is the view the canon anathematises.

“Anathema” (Major Excomunication)
In the New Testament anathema no longer entails death, but the loss of goods or exclusion from the society of the faithful.

Yeah exactly, they are formerly excluded from the sacraments of the church! What do you think should happen? They should be allowed to take communion when they have chosen not to be Christian anymore. My Sister formerly left the Church, she is no longer able to receive any of the Sacraments. She is still Christian by virtue of baptism and confirmation. I pray for her always to come back to the church but she is not coerced in any way. If she decided on her own to come back all she would have to do is go to confession and resume her Catholic life.

If a woman has an abortion she is automatically excommunicated. Preist have been given the faculities in our diocese to forgive this sin which allows the woman back into the fold.

Coercion nay, just common sense!