M
Montie_Claunch
Guest
A fundamentalist Gentleman showed me the following quote to show how errouneous we are. How should I respond? Thanks and God bless.
- Status
U
USMC
Guest
Tell him that what he quoted is a teaching of the Church and you believe it. Tell him that seperation of Church and state is actually an error of liberalism, and then provide him with the following quote from Pope Leo XIII, which is an encyclical in which he condemns the error of the liberals:
**Pope Leo XIII, Libertas, #18: **. “There are others [other liberals], somewhat more moderate though not more consistent, who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. **Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest. **Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the State providing means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to live properly, that is to say, according to the laws of God. For, since God is the source of all goodness and justice, it is absolutely ridiculous that the State should pay no attention to these laws or render them abortive by contrary enactments. Besides, those who are in authority owe it to the commonwealth not only to provide for its external well-being and the conveniences of life, but still more to consult the welfare of men’s souls in the wisdom of their legislation. But, for the increase of such benefits, nothing more suitable can be conceived than the laws which have God for their author; and, therefore, they who in their government of the State take no account of these laws abuse political power by causing it to deviate from its proper end and from what nature itself prescribes. And, what is still more important, and what We have more than once pointed out, although the civil authority has not the same proximate end as the spiritual, nor proceeds on the same lines, nevertheless in the exercise of their separate powers they must occasionally meet. For their subjects are the same, and not infrequently they deal with the same objects, though in different ways. Whenever this occurs, since a state of conflict is absurd and manifestly repugnant to the most wise ordinance of God, there must necessarily exist some order or mode of procedure to remove the occasions of difference and contention, and to secure harmony in all things. This harmony [between Church and State] has been not inaptly compared to that which exists between the body and the soul for the well-being of both one and the other, the separation of which brings irremediable harm to the body, since it extinguishes its very life.” (Libertas)
M
MikeinSD
Guest
I think most Protestants, Jews, other religious, and non-religious would welcome the Catholic church as the official established church of the US.
How do you think life in the US would change with an official religion?
How do you think life in the US would change with an official religion?
L
Liberian
Guest
Montie,
Ask your fundamentalist friend if he would like to live in a society where the ACLU has free rein. That is what the “separation of church and state” that Leo comdemned leads to.
Ask your fundamentalist friend if he would like to live in a society where the ACLU has free rein. That is what the “separation of church and state” that Leo comdemned leads to.
- Liberian
R
RPConover
Guest
What if Catholic-hating fundamentalists of some sort or another were the “church” that was not seperate from the state? Would you like that? What if they enacted biggoted laws against Catholics because the church(their church) and the state were not seperate?
K
kleary
Guest
Tell him he is absolutely right.
You can already see the horrors of the separation of Church and state. Remember, our government is only 200 years old and it is the first instance in human history I believe to where Church and state have been seperate.
Ken
K
kleary
Guest
This is not "false church [fundamentalist protestants and all other non-Catholic religions]. The separation of the Catholic Church from the state is the error the Pope spoke out against.
Ken
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
The separation of Church and state all too often is used as an excuse to silence people of faith and discourage them from legitimately participating in the public square. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, of course, does not advocate for a separation of Church and state at all, but rather the protection of religious freedom from the state.
Our founding fathers intended all persons to have the equal right to voice their opinions, including those based on religious convictions. Even more, they understood that it was imperative that the state not infringe upon the religious beliefs of its citizens. The Constitution is aimed at allowing all people to have a voice in the government, including those whose voice is distinctively religious.
In other words, there is nothing in the Constitution excluding people from bringing their faith into the public square.
(Words from Most Reverend Thomas J. Olmsted)
Our founding fathers intended all persons to have the equal right to voice their opinions, including those based on religious convictions. Even more, they understood that it was imperative that the state not infringe upon the religious beliefs of its citizens. The Constitution is aimed at allowing all people to have a voice in the government, including those whose voice is distinctively religious.
In other words, there is nothing in the Constitution excluding people from bringing their faith into the public square.
(Words from Most Reverend Thomas J. Olmsted)
C
corvidae
Guest
I think that one of the things that you need to look at is that when the Pope was talking, he was not talking about seperation of Church and State as in the State having no official religion, and the Church not controlling the State.
He was talking about what happens when the State begins to become atheistic, and says that Faith should have no part in its laws or the way that it works. What the pope spoke out against was trying to remove God from the life of the people.
A lone Raven
p.s. this is just my opinion, I could be wrong
He was talking about what happens when the State begins to become atheistic, and says that Faith should have no part in its laws or the way that it works. What the pope spoke out against was trying to remove God from the life of the people.
A lone Raven
p.s. this is just my opinion, I could be wrong
U
USMC
Guest
If you read more writings of the Popes regarding seperation of Church and State, you will see that what they meant was that the Catholic religion alone should be the sole religion of the State and that the State should enforce the laws of the Church.
The Church is subject to God and must teach His laws; the State is also subject to God and His laws (as taught by the Church) and should enforce God’s laws. The first law (or commandment) of God forbids any religion other than that which God established (the Catholic religion). Since the State has the right, and even duty, to enforce the laws of God (as taught and defined by the Church) the State has every right to punish those who violate that law of God.
In the middle ages the Church would judge the person’s guilt in violations of the first commandment, and then turn the person over to the State for punishement. Heresy was against the law of the State, but the State did not have the authority to judge that crime. The State only had the right to punish those who were found guilty of the violation of God’s law.
On the other hand, the State can also “tolerate” false religions if the Church deems it prudent. For example if the US became a Catholc Country, it would certainly be prudent to tolerate false worship, since there are so many different religions co-mingled. But if these false religions faded away, in order to prevent them from rising again, the State could certainly forbid them and punish any offenders.
Some may say: That sounds like what the Muslims teach. The Muslims are not wrong in teaching that it is the ideal for the law of the State to reflect the law of God; they are wrong in their belief of what God’s law is.
R
rr1213
Guest
The similarity between this and some of the anti-Catholic nonsense that gets posted over at CARM is frightening. It’s even more frightening to see it come from a Catholic. If the USA becomes a Catholic nation (entirely plausible with the trends of current immigration), then should Catholics use their dominance to amend the Constitution to abrogate the First Amendment and make the Catholic faith the State Religion? Would they be mandated by the Catholic Church to take such action? Would other faiths, Christian and otherwise, be tolerated only to the extent that the Church considers convenient? I thought that this viewpoint, and the anti-Catholic responses that it quite understandably engenders, went out with John F. Kennedy. If this is what the Catholic Church teaches then, perhaps, those of us who are non-Catholics should be on our guard?
U
USMC
Guest
If you have time over the weeking, you ought to read the following encyclical. It is excellent, and gives the mind of the Church on this subject.
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html
C
corvidae
Guest
I believe you are wrong here USMC.
The Pope states that the State should teach the laws of God, and it should. It also states that the ends of State and the ends of Church are the same and different. They are both purposed with allowing people to live by God’s law. However, the State is for temporal, and the Church for Spiritual.
Also, look at the post you posted, it states, when the Church and state come into conflict, and when they touch, there should be harmony. If the Church were the only Church and controlled the State, then this would be constant, and there would be no need for the “when”
The Catholic church itself in the middle ages proclaimed there was a difference between church and state. The two swords, one of temporal power, one of spiritual power. The state held one, the pope held two. The state should continue to hold only one. When something becomes the official religion, it is in my opinion, typically, the state that ends up weilding power over the Church, not vice versa.
A lone Raven
U
USMC
Guest
What it said is there it is impossible for them to be in harmony. In other words, it would be impossible for the State to teach other than what the Church taught, since the State is subject to the same laws of God.
Hey, I like that saying that the State holds one sword and the Pope two. That’s good.
Like you said, the Church and State are separate entities, but they are to be united. No one ever said the Church and the State are the same thing.
But notice, you said that the State holds the temporal sword and the Pope holds both the temporal and spiritual. This shows that the State is supposed to be subject to the Pope.
Here’s a couple of errors condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX:
[it is an error to hold that’ The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church." (No. 55)
[It is an error to hold that] "77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. (#55) – Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.
The following proposition is condemned: "Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. (#78) – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
Here is the link to the entire syllabus: 72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:rKURYx17agUJ:www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm+the+State+ought+to+be+separated+Syllabus&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2
You also ought to read the entire encyclical I linked to in my last post. This will give you the mind of the Church of many modern errors. It is a very enlightening encyclical, and very important for our times.
R
rr1213
Guest
…and Praise be to God for the wisdom of our founding fathers. The First Amendment of the Constitution, with its guarantee of religious freedom and practice, as well as its prohibition on the establishment of religion, is the primary reason why this country remains the most religious of the industrial democracies and the most tolerant of the various faiths of its peoples. Thanks be to God.
R
rr1213
Guest
I’ve read the Syllabus of Errors before and its troubling. The Catholic Church in the last quarter of the 20th Century, especially under John Paul II, was a beacon of freedom for the oppressed peoples of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. But it hasn’t always been the case. There are plenty of predominately Catholic countries that today are democratic and free, but it is also a historic fact that democracy and free societies developed primarily outside of the influence of the Catholic Church. I think that this is because historically the Catholic Church has not looked favorably on free societies. I think that has changed, but raising the banner of the Syllabus of Errors is a step backward, not forward.
Further, we were taught by Christ to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. Paul admonished us to be good citizens and to obey the magistrate when to do so would not be sin, written at a time when the magistrate was neither Christian nor particularly humane. We are also told that the governments that reign over us have been placed there by God, even though they may not be Godly regimes. None of this leads me to the conclusion that the State is subject to the Pope and that religious differences should be tolerated, nay protected, merely because it is the whim of the Church.
I will try to read the Encyclical you posted over the weekend.
P
Philthy
Guest
I would politely tell him that you don’t know precisely the error he is pointing out and ask him to explain what the error is and what He believes the truth to be. Do not answer questions until he has completely discussed (A) precisely what he believes the error is; (B) What he believes the truth to be regarding the error; and (C) where he got his truth from. Once those bases are covered you will have something to discuss. At this point, we are only guessing what he believes is erroneous, what his version of the truth is, and where he got his version of the truth.
R
rr1213
Guest
That’s just going to antagonize our fundamentalist friend. The Point of Debate is obvious. The OP references a direct quote from the Syllabus of Errors which asserts that the concept of the separation of the Church from the State is error. In contrast, most Americans firmly believe in the separation of Church and State (a phrase taken, as you no doubt know, from a letter of Thomas Jefferson, not directly from the Constitution, although it is essentially enshrined there now as well by judicial fiat).
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Point out to him - if he does not already know this - that the Pope gives the references in the Syllabus to those of that Pope’s letters from which the condemned propositions are taken.
They each address a specific problem - and the circumstances which make a condemnation of an idea in (say) Hungary which is then condemned by a Papal letter in (say) 1853, might be inappropriate in the UK in 2006: the condemned idea might be perfectly harmless, in some contexts, or even be Papal teaching.IOW - look at the meaning of the condemned proposition in their historical contexts. That will show why there is a condemnation, & what is being condemned. Words alone are not everything - the ideas they express, in their historical circumstances, are what matter.
Otherwise Jesus would be convicted of fraud by Christians every time they read in Isaiah: “I am the Lord, & beside Me there is no other”. What a final proof of the falsehood of Christ that is - if only words by themselves, and not history or their context, are considered
Newman dealt with this ill-informed approach to the Syllabus well over a century ago, here:
newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section7.html
It is bad theological method, & bad reasoning, to take a single sentence from a letter, & to treat it is a universal and exceptionless & timeless judgement on everything that may in one’s own time & country look like it. The USA in 2000 is not France (say) in 1850. One has to know why the original condemned proposition was condemned. This is basic (un)common sense.
Hope that helps
R
rr1213
Guest
Good point. Unfortunately, it was the Pope who pulled these sentences or concepts out of previous historical documents and ammalgamated them into the Syllabus of Errors. That being the case, it is the Pope who took them out of their (perhaps more limiting) historical context and asserted them as principles of general application. This is going to sound bigoted, but if some of the stuff asserted in this thread is really what the Catholic Church is teaching American Catholics then this is a threat to democratic principles and religious freedom and diversity in this country.Point out to him - if he does not already know this - that the Pope gives the references in the Syllabus to those of that Pope’s letters from which the condemned propositions are taken.
They each address a specific problem - and the circumstances which make a condemnation of an idea in (say) Hungary which is then condemned by a Papal letter in (say) 1853, might be inappropriate in the UK in 2006: the condemned idea might be perfectly harmless, in some contexts, or even be Papal teaching.
IOW - look at the meaning of the condemned proposition in their historical contexts. That will show why there is a condemnation, & what is being condemned. Words alone are not everything - the ideas they express, in their historical circumstances, are what matter.
Otherwise Jesus would be convicted of fraud by Christians every time they read in Isaiah: “I am the Lord, & beside Me there is no other”. What a final proof of the falsehood of Christ that is - if only words by themselves, and not history or their context, are considered
Newman dealt with this ill-informed approach to the Syllabus well over a century ago, here:
newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section7.html
It is bad theological method, & bad reasoning, to take a single sentence from a letter, & to treat it is a universal and exceptionless & timeless judgement on everything that may in one’s own time & country look like it. The USA in 2000 is not France (say) in 1850. One has to know why the original condemned proposition was condemned. This is basic (un)common sense.
Hope that helps
- Status