The Catholic Church and religious coercion- the smoking gun 2

[Reuben_J]

I posted this in another thread about this subject, but I probably should have posted it here, first.
One thing that I think many of us forget (myself included) when we see references to the Church’s right to use “coercion” in regards to Canon Law, is that these canons do not just apply to the laity (the ordinary members sitting in the pews), but they also apply to members of the clergy and religious orders (nuns, monks, etc.). This is a situation that calls for a much more complex application of those laws.

In many non-Catholic Christian churches, at least in those which are independent and self-governing, much of their membership is only comprised of a minister and the regular members of their independent congregation. I don’t think they have a lot of rules about how they might handle the issue of fidelity among their members.

Maybe not as comprehensive as the canon of the Catholic Church or some high churches, but they do have some sort of law and rule governing their churches. Someone mentioned they can ‘disfellowship’ a member for contravening their churches rule and belief, with the consequence of loss of privilege and monetary remuneration, if any, from their church, which is a kind of anathema too.

It seems to me that they probably just come and go on a regular basis, because many people tend to go wherever they find a church that they like.

Yes, a loosely gathering of congregation without much canonical binding rule sure appeals to a lot of people.

I do realize that there are others that have some more formal structure (Lutherans, etc.), so I would think they might be more understanding of the need for certain regulations, common to all churches under their organization.

These churches retain some of the legacy of the Catholic Church having been there before they broke away and as a result have a closer resemblance of the Catholic Church, especially features that they retained.

But, even those who have a common structure of law among their many member churches, when they look at the Canon Laws of the Catholic Church, they still tend to only look at them being applied to the general congregation. They don’t have the same kind of hierarchical structure, and don’t understand the concept of Priests and Religious who take life-long vows (such as obedience, poverty, chastity, etc.), which may make a huge difference in how any Canon Law would apply to them.

Exactly. I think Protestants would not quite understand this. The fact that they are taught about the excesses of the Catholic Church in the past, that would make them have to view any church law negatively. To them it is unchristian, the concept that a church should have its own governing law (canon law) – the law of men.

This is not to say that their churches do not have their own rules but somehow this may be conveniently overlooked, like they do not have a Pope, but essentially their chief pastor/pastor functions very much like a pope albeit with different set of authority and power.

Some penalties that the Church might apply are specifically targeted at different members, according to their personal position in the Church. Whether they are clergy, extraordinary ministers, members of a religious order, or just a regular member of the laity, their position or office will determine which penalties are appropriate for the offense, and how those penalties are applied. Some members might only be required to perform simple acts of penance, while others might be subject to a formal excommunication. In the case of a Priest, not only might it include their loss of participation in the sacraments, but also their ability to perform the sacraments, as well as a loss of residence and of pay. It’s a much more complicated issue than most people might think it would be.

Exactly.

So, many of the concerns voiced (and accusations made) by people on the outside, about what kinds of “coercion” the Catholic Church might try to use against anyone wanting to leave the Church, are mostly due to a misunderstanding of Canon Law, or possibly the result of over active imaginations. Especially among those who keep looking at what took place over 500 years ago, when there was an entirely different kind of political structure in place, that blurred the lines between civil law and Canon Law. Those kinds of situations no longer exist in the modern world.

I think it is just not their belief that the Church should have a structure and governing body with a set of church law, which as history has shown, was often abused, stifling believers with lack of freedom of free will and giving the church officials too much authority and power.

Protestants broke with the Catholic Church chiefly due to this reason so there is no reason that they should like the canon law or even understand it, which is not an easy thing even for Catholics themselves unless they are trained in the subject.

 

[Vico]

I read the first page, but yeeks there are 10 more. My understanding of Trent is that it can be understood to be just referring to young children and their parents. Does anyone have an argument otherwise?

If you are referring to Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 14, from the first post, then no, the subject is the adult Catholic: “those who have been thus baptized when children are, when they have grown up …”.

 

[bjryman]

Pretty good post. Seems very fair.

I was shocked and saddened that the very first council since Jerusalem the poor bishops succumbed to the temptation of the first anathemas with civil penalties. Just as persecution finally ended from the Roman empire, the church and the Empire turns around and persecutes divisive teaching (Arianism) at the Nicea Council (325). Thus the tone was set all the way up to Trent and beyond.

Still not sure Vat 2 totally does away with the theology/reasoning behind penalties though it tries. firstthings.com/article/2012/08/conscience-and-coercion deals with this.

But I like your honest look at history. As CS Lewis sated , “those ignorant of history are slaves to the recent past”, paraphrase.

Blessings

Yes, I am sure that today there remain many cradle Catholics who have trouble with Vatican II…period. No problem with that, the whole Church in the public world certainly did change. What I keep trying to share here in these posts is mostly directed at those who “throw down the gauntlet” of absolutisms. (my word ). Study closely our Church history, look at each Popes relatonship with his secular ruler(s), see just how far sometimes where the “corrective actions” taken by Church and Secular Rulers…often together.

Compare that journey to our Church’s teachings on the early Christians, celebrating in homes, sharing, etc.

Then think about living in one of those eras…think about what one would have been raised to believe, and accept. I continue to submit that the basic story of our personal salvation has never, ever changed. That is the strength, the real Truth of the Church.

It is all the other attempts to quantify exactly how every moment of one’s life should be lived to stay out of sin, that is so vulnerable. Also, the pure complexity of each precious life God creates, and each persons own pathway to holiness, is very difficult to put in a common box regarding all topics.

 

[benhur]

Yes, I am sure that today there remain many cradle Catholics who have trouble with Vatican II…period. No problem with that, the whole Church in the public world certainly did change. What I keep trying to share here in these posts is mostly directed at those who “throw down the gauntlet” of absolutisms. (my word ). Study closely our Church history, look at each Popes relatonship with his secular ruler(s), see just how far sometimes where the “corrective actions” taken by Church and Secular Rulers…often together.

Compare that journey to our Church’s teachings on the early Christians, celebrating in homes, sharing, etc.

Then think about living in one of those eras…think about what one would have been raised to believe, and accept. I continue to submit that the basic story of our personal salvation has never, ever changed. That is the strength, the real Truth of the Church.

It is all the other attempts to quantify exactly how every moment of one’s life should be lived to stay out of sin, that is so vulnerable. Also, the pure complexity of each precious life God creates, and each persons own pathway to holiness, is very difficult to put in a common box regarding all topics.

Hi b

Thanks for sharing. What I underlined of your post is a mouthful and there is something to be said for simplicity. To that point , look at the Nicene creed or even it’s council canons, in its shortness, which indeed may be it’s strength. Then look at Trent and its massive writings and canons. Tough to be universal when you specify so many jot and tittles. I think the same thing happened in OT also ( forcing of eventual different “schools” of thought)

As to your last paragraph , I would say if you put the wind of the Spirit in a box, you stop Him. Yes there is complexity but such as is common to all men. Like you are unique, just like everybody else. As some say, in the end be found written in the book of life.

Blessings

 

[bjryman]

Hi b

Thanks for sharing. What I underlined of your post is a mouthful and there is something to be said for simplicity. To that point , look at the Nicene creed or even it’s council canons, in its shortness, which indeed may be it’s strength. Then look at Trent and its massive writings and canons. Tough to be universal when you specify so many jot and tittles. I think the same thing happened in OT also ( forcing of eventual different “schools” of thought)

As to your last paragraph , I would say if you put the wind of the Spirit in a box, you stop Him. Yes there is complexity but such as is common to all men. Like you are unique, just like everybody else. As some say, in the end be found written in the book of life.

Blessings

You summarized my thoughts quite well. The Nicene Creed is simplicity in itself and one that can be used to describe our faith universally.

The rest, as you note, creates a condition where it is extremely tough to be Universal, per sea.

The Church absolutely accepts significant cultural differences today regarding overall rubrics and mores of our Faith. Come to our Church in Indiana and witness the unique and separate Hispanic Mass each Sunday that lasts as long as two hours and introduces all kinds of “rituals” that go far beyond the European version of the Church. Some posters here would be horrified at the extra emphasis on patron saints and the near worship of Mary, just as two examples.

Again, this acceptance beyond tolerance is what so many don’t really appreciate about the Church.

 

[ffg]

(continued)

Mike (ffg) …
(to be continued)

Wow Picky,

That was a lot. Good work.

I think it’s been clear in all of my analysis that the most important item for me is to ensure we know what the Church is doing in the Council and Session. The Context.

We don’t need to make it up, it’s in the opening text of the Council and Session (and not as confusing as the Canon in question).

Not including this in your summary of my work here, sure changes my intent while playing your grammatically challenged counter.

Take note of my last paragraph in reply to you in post 484. (I’ll wait)

I was never pushing for a technical (grammatical) ‘right’, so I didn’t (and don’t) see a need to address the ‘wrong’ label you so eloquently bestowed upon me.

Why?

The text provided originally is a translation. The Text provided as a response to my first analysis is a restatement of the translation.

‘Meaning’ in paper translations can be different than seen, the reason context is so very important.

I don’t know why you want to shy away from answering how the ‘anyone’ is the heretic.

I asked Telstar the same question differently. (Assuming you and Telstar agree that the asking is the sin).

I also don’t think it helps the effort for understanding Canon 14, to throw out text in Canon 14. There are some short Canon’s. If the text was meaningless, there is precedence to be short.

Take care,

Mike

 

[Picky_Picky]

Wow Picky,

That was a lot. Good work.

I think it’s been clear in all of my analysis that the most important item for me is to ensure we know what the Church is doing in the Council and Session. The Context.

We don’t need to make it up, it’s in the opening text of the Council and Session (and not as confusing as the Canon in question).

Not including this in your summary of my work here, sure changes my intent while playing your grammatically challenged counter.

Take note of my last paragraph in reply to you in post 484. (I’ll wait)

I was never pushing for a technical (grammatical) ‘right’, so I didn’t (and don’t) see a need to address the ‘wrong’ label you so eloquently bestowed upon me.

Why?

The text provided originally is a translation. The Text provided as a response to my first analysis is a restatement of the translation.

‘Meaning’ in paper translations can be different than seen, the reason context is so very important.

I don’t know why you want to shy away from answering how the ‘anyone’ is the heretic.

I asked Telstar the same question differently. (Assuming you and Telstar agree that the asking is the sin).

I also don’t think it helps the effort for understanding Canon 14, to throw out text in Canon 14. There are some short Canon’s. If the text was meaningless, there is precedence to be short.

Take care,

Mike

Thanks, Mike. Give me a little time.

Picky

 

[ProdigalSun]

Behind all these posts is one factor driving all the Church teachings up until, really, Vatican II. Since Constantine ordered that the Christian Religion was to be the official State Religion, that very fact pulled State and Church together.
.

Oh boy! Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion. He allowed it to prosper by ordering the persecutions to stop!

 

[benhur]

Oh boy! Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion. He allowed it to prosper by ordering the persecutions to stop!

Well he did a little more than just stop persecutions.He built churches and gave advantages to to Christian churches and clergy, ordered the famous council at Nicea(325) . But yes, it was Emperor Theodosius in 380 AD that took it a step further and made the Christian faith a state religion.

 

[Reuben_J]

Well he did a little more than just stop persecutions.He built churches and gave advantages to to Christian churches and clergy, ordered the famous council at Nicea(325) . But yes, it was Emperor Theodosius in 380 AD that took it a step further and made the Christian faith a state religion.

Thanks God that there is a separation of church and state now.

There is good and bad when there was no separation. For one, Christianity was given a jump start and flourished without the the persecution.

The bad, as always the case when politic is involved and too much power given, there can always be abuses. The consolation we can take is that Church’s doctrine remained steadfast and faithful to the teaching of the Lord. Even the Emperor (Constantine) could not change that (the Arianism case for example).

The faith of the Christians themselves - quite often when things are taken for granted, they tend to be complacent, and when life is good, worldly temptation creeps in. Under persecution, life was hard but that also made more martyrs.

Now we have the benefit of hindsight. It is up to us to achieve a balance.

 

[bjryman]

Well he did a little more than just stop persecutions.He built churches and gave advantages to to Christian churches and clergy, ordered the famous council at Nicea(325) . But yes, it was Emperor Theodosius in 380 AD that took it a step further and made the Christian faith a state religion.

Yes, Constantine “acted” to pull church and state together, Theodosius “enacted” it into law. But both set the stage. The early Christian religion would have had a considerably different “face” to it if it had not been given all the trappings of the Roman political system. Even the Baslicas which were arranged to have the local Roman ruler sitting on a raised dias at the end of a long “hall” was taken as the physical form of the church, altar, and the dias on which the priest sits.

No way around it…our Catholic Church’s physical dimension was formed by the Roman Empire and the Eastern Empire.

Thus, for centuries thereafter, many decisions about our faith had deep seeded connection to and from the secular world. The US was the very first completely independant Church/State political experiment. Yet even here, the tie to Faith based morals and ethics was strong.

 

[GiveTheTruth]

Titus 3:10 “Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition. Knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self condemned.”

Hebrews 13: 17: “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.”

 

[Picky_Picky]

Wow Picky,

That was a lot. Good work.

I think it’s been clear in all of my analysis that the most important item for me is to ensure we know what the Church is doing in the Council and Session. The Context.

We don’t need to make it up, it’s in the opening text of the Council and Session (and not as confusing as the Canon in question).

Not including this in your summary of my work here, sure changes my intent while playing your grammatically challenged counter.

Take note of my last paragraph in reply to you in post 484. (I’ll wait)

I was never pushing for a technical (grammatical) ‘right’, so I didn’t (and don’t) see a need to address the ‘wrong’ label you so eloquently bestowed upon me.

Why?

The text provided originally is a translation. The Text provided as a response to my first analysis is a restatement of the translation.

‘Meaning’ in paper translations can be different than seen, the reason context is so very important.

I don’t know why you want to shy away from answering how the ‘anyone’ is the heretic.

I asked Telstar the same question differently. (Assuming you and Telstar agree that the asking is the sin).

I also don’t think it helps the effort for understanding Canon 14, to throw out text in Canon 14. There are some short Canon’s. If the text was meaningless, there is precedence to be short.

Take care,

Mike

OK Mike, here’s my attempt.

Mike, the last paragraph of your post 484 seems to me (apologies if I’ve got this wrong) to be saying that the canon cannot be condemning the view that one can, without civil penalty, jettison one’s baptism on reaching adulthood because that meaning would be counter to God’s gift of free will. But we do not believe that people cannot be prevented from exercising their God-given free will — if we did believe that we would have no laws. And if you mean we must not be restricted in our freedom of belief, that was most certainly not the view of the mediaeval church. The church did not take the view that Christians were entitled freely to express religious views counter to those of the church.

As to shying away from explaining why it is the “Anyone” who is anathema, I thought I had offered what seemed to me to be an unanswerable explanation from grammar. But I’ll approach it from a different direction if you prefer.

(to be continued)

 

[Picky_Picky]

(Continued)

Here’s the cast list: five of them.

1 Erasmus, who caused the problem
2 Trent, who dealt with it
3 Our friend Anyone
4 Mr B, a baptised person reaching adulthood.
5 The Asker, someone who asks Mr B about the baptismal vows.

Erasmus starts the ball rolling by suggesting that those baptised in infancy should be able, on reaching adulthood, to decline to ratify the vows made on their behalf, and not thereby be liable for any penalty other than the withholding of the sacraments.

Trent doesn’t like that. Why? Because it seems to imply that baptism can be shed, whereas in fact it is a permanent mark, making the baptised a Christian for ever, and subject for ever to the church’s disciplines and penalties.

Trent therefore decides to declare Erasmus’s suggestion heretical. How does it do that? The way it defines all heresies. It declares that anyone expressing the heresy is anathema. In this case it declares that “anyone” expressing Erasmus’s view is anathema. So there is our friend Anyone. If he says what Erasmus said, he is anathema.

So Erasmus’s view that Mr B can de-ratify the vows is wrong, as is his view that if Mr B should attempt to de-ratify he should be subject to no penalty other than withdrawal of the sacraments. If Mr B tries to shed his baptism he will be excommunicated, says Trent, and may also suffer other, unspecified, penalties, until he repents.

What about The Asker? Well if baptismal vows cannot be jettisoned, The Asker is clearly wrong to ask Mr B if he wants to jettison them. What penalties The Asker might face are also not specified.

That’s how it seems to me. Erasmus has been told to behave himself (a bit late: by now he’s dead); Trent has defined the heresy; Anyone is anathema if he repeats Erasmus’s statement; Mr B is in real trouble if he tries to de-ratify the vows; The Asker should definitely not have asked.

 

[AbideWithMe]

(Continued)

Here’s the cast list: five of them.

1 Erasmus, who caused the problem
2 Trent, who dealt with it
3 Our friend Anyone
4 Mr B, a baptised person reaching adulthood.
5 The Asker, someone who asks Mr B about the baptismal vows.

Erasmus starts the ball rolling by suggesting that those baptised in infancy should be able, on reaching adulthood, to decline to ratify the vows made on their behalf, and not thereby be liable for any penalty other than the withholding of the sacraments.

Trent doesn’t like that. Why? Because it seems to imply that baptism can be shed, whereas in fact it is a permanent mark, making the baptised a Christian for ever, and subject for ever to the church’s disciplines and penalties.

Trent therefore decides to declare Erasmus’s suggestion heretical. How does it do that? The way it defines all heresies. It declares that anyone expressing the heresy is anathema. In this case it declares that “anyone” expressing Erasmus’s view is anathema. So there is our friend Anyone. If he says what Erasmus said, he is anathema.

So Erasmus’s view that Mr B can de-ratify the vows is wrong, as is his view that if Mr B should attempt to de-ratify he should be subject to no penalty other than withdrawal of the sacraments. If Mr B tries to shed his baptism he will be excommunicated, says Trent, and may also suffer other, unspecified, penalties, until he repents.

What about The Asker? Well if baptismal vows cannot be jettisoned, The Asker is clearly wrong to ask Mr B if he wants to jettison them. What penalties The Asker might face are also not specified.

That’s how it seems to me. Erasmus has been told to behave himself (a bit late: by now he’s dead); Trent has defined the heresy; Anyone is anathema if he repeats Erasmus’s statement; Mr B is in real trouble if he tries to de-ratify the vows; The Asker should definitely not have asked.

Oh boy, I can’t wait till this is made into a movie! I can see Liam Neeson as Erasmus!

 

[ffg]

OK Mike, here’s my attempt.

Mike, the last paragraph of your post 484 seems to me (apologies if I’ve got this wrong) to be saying that the canon cannot be condemning the view that one can, without civil penalty, jettison one’s baptism on reaching adulthood because that meaning would be counter to God’s gift of free will. But we do not believe that people cannot be prevented from exercising their God-given free will — if we did believe that we would have no laws. And if you mean we must not be restricted in our freedom of belief, that was most certainly not the view of the mediaeval church. The church did not take the view that Christians were entitled freely to express religious views counter to those of the church.

As to shying away from explaining why it is the “Anyone” who is anathema, I thought I had offered what seemed to me to be an unanswerable explanation from grammar. But I’ll approach it from a different direction if you prefer.

(to be continued)

Thanks Picky, I’ll have to get to the second post later. Much appreciated.

For the first, not sure if I agree that the existence of laws restricts freedom of thought. Even terrible laws that result in forceful acts by another human to physically restrict a person and prepare them for a forced death, pending the rejection of a forced conversion, the mind is not restricted by that law’s existence.

I’m not sure if I even think existence of laws restricts freedom in general. Breaking laws, certainly, but the existence of…leaning disagree.

I think we can work from the second half and add a little context…

“The church did not take the view that Christians were entitled freely to express religious views counter to those of the church.”

…(Why?)…

~ There was 1 Christian Church, which…

~ was not in the business of delivering information for debate among the people, rather…

~ A key purpose was to deliver truth.

Regardless of belief if the Church has the truth, all interested people can know the Church was/is/will speak from a position of ‘truth flowing from God through the Church’.

This is why the Church uses a Shepherd and Sheep as an example.

The Shepherd, who sees much more than the sheep, is to keep the sheep feeding in good areas and safe from dangerous wolves.

Sheep sometimes think they and the Shepherd are the same height.

Sheep like to explore, and there is a lot of land out there.

Take care,

Mike

 

[ffg]

(Continued)

Here’s the cast list: five of them.

1 Erasmus, who caused the problem
2 Trent, who dealt with it
3 Our friend Anyone
4 Mr B, a baptised person reaching adulthood.
5 The Asker, someone who asks Mr B about the baptismal vows.

Erasmus starts the ball rolling by suggesting that those baptised in infancy should be able, on reaching adulthood, to decline to ratify the vows made on their behalf, and not thereby be liable for any penalty other than the withholding of the sacraments.

Trent doesn’t like that. Why? Because it seems to imply that baptism can be shed, whereas in fact it is a permanent mark, making the baptised a Christian for ever, and subject for ever to the church’s disciplines and penalties.

Trent therefore decides to declare Erasmus’s suggestion heretical. How does it do that? The way it defines all heresies. It declares that anyone expressing the heresy is anathema. In this case it declares that “anyone” expressing Erasmus’s view is anathema. So there is our friend Anyone. If he says what Erasmus said, he is anathema.

So Erasmus’s view that Mr B can de-ratify the vows is wrong, as is his view that if Mr B should attempt to de-ratify he should be subject to no penalty other than withdrawal of the sacraments. If Mr B tries to shed his baptism he will be excommunicated, says Trent, and may also suffer other, unspecified, penalties, until he repents.

What about The Asker? Well if baptismal vows cannot be jettisoned, The Asker is clearly wrong to ask Mr B if he wants to jettison them. What penalties The Asker might face are also not specified.

That’s how it seems to me. Erasmus has been told to behave himself (a bit late: by now he’s dead); Trent has defined the heresy; Anyone is anathema if he repeats Erasmus’s statement; Mr B is in real trouble if he tries to de-ratify the vows; The Asker should definitely not have asked.

That was awesome. So much better than an unanswerable explanation from grammar. And to think, much of the script is written! You can push this through production in no time.

One question for now - the asker and anyone are one and the same, separated here for dramatic effect?

To move it forward a little ( I know my 20 minute clock has started, but I didn’t want to triple up), the one thing that sticks out as a point of difference is asking to affirm/confirm vs asking to jettison.

This clarifies my earlier question to Telstar, in that we affirm our vows often, asking to affirm being wrong, seems odd.

But asking to jettison I think has enough variance, I can see the wrong (but I think the canon comes across as affirm).

Thanks,

Mike

 

[Picky_Picky]

Thanks Picky, I’ll have to get to the second post later. Much appreciated.

For the first, not sure if I agree that the existence of laws restricts freedom of thought. Even terrible laws that result in forceful acts by another human to physically restrict a person and prepare them for a forced death, pending the rejection of a forced conversion, the mind is not restricted by that law’s existence.

I’m not sure if I even think existence of laws restricts freedom in general. Breaking laws, certainly, but the existence of…leaning disagree.

I think we can work from the second half and add a little context…

“The church did not take the view that Christians were entitled freely to express religious views counter to those of the church.”

…(Why?)…

~ There was 1 Christian Church, which…

~ was not in the business of delivering information for debate among the people, rather…

~ A key purpose was to deliver truth.

Regardless of belief if the Church has the truth, all interested people can know the Church was/is/will speak from a position of ‘truth flowing from God through the Church’.

This is why the Church uses a Shepherd and Sheep as an example.

The Shepherd, who sees much more than the sheep, is to keep the sheep feeding in good areas and safe from dangerous wolves.

Sheep sometimes think they and the Shepherd are the same height.

Sheep like to explore, and there is a lot of land out there.

Take care,

Mike

We are certainly constrained in the expression of our belief. I will find myself in some amount of bother if I express the beliefs that can be described as blasphemy, sedition, incitement to violence, obscenity or defamation. (And quite right, mostly, too).

Don’t misunderstand me. I am not in this thread to attack the RCC. I fully believe Trent believed it was shepherding. I also believe “The church did not take the view that Christians were entitled freely to express religious views counter to those of the church.”

It seems you do, too.

Picky

 

[Picky_Picky]

That was awesome. So much better than an unanswerable explanation from grammar. And to think, much of the script is written! You can push this through production in no time.

One question for now - the asker and anyone are one and the same, separated here for dramatic effect?

To move it forward a little ( I know my 20 minute clock has started, but I didn’t want to triple up), the one thing that sticks out as a point of difference is asking to affirm/confirm vs asking to jettison.

This clarifies my earlier question to Telstar, in that we affirm our vows often, asking to affirm being wrong, seems odd.

But asking to jettison I think has enough variance, I can see the wrong (but I think the canon comes across as affirm).

Thanks,

Mike

Nope, I haven’t been considering The Asker and Anyone to be the same person. I don’t think I should, necessarily.

Picky

 

[ffg]

We are certainly constrained in the expression of our belief. I will find myself in some amount of bother if I express the beliefs that can be described as blasphemy, sedition, incitement to violence, obscenity or defamation. (And quite right, mostly, too).

Don’t misunderstand me. I am not in this thread to attack the RCC. I fully believe Trent believed it was shepherding. I also believe “The church did not take the view that Christians were entitled freely to express religious views counter to those of the church.”

It seems you do, too.

Picky

Certainly, but most notably in the light of the list above.

I might phrase it a little differently to lay in the responsibility of the person (Christian). Maybe something like…

“The church expected (and expects) that Christians express religious views not heretical to those of the church.”

But that’s probably word smithing.

Take care,

Mike