N
Namesake
Guest
No it is not. No place no where.
- Status
M
mgrfin
Guest
Another fifth grade genius:
First Amendment:
Quote
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances Unquote
Generally, the amendment is referred to as guaranteeing us separation of church and state.
D
DustinsDad
Guest
That depends on what it is. Can you tell me?
S
SFD
Guest
A condemnatory statement in a Papal encyclical is an infallible statement.
And here is the seed of another condemned statement.
SFD
D
DustinsDad
Guest
N
Namesake
Guest
Regardless of your insipid insults, if you read the first amendment correctly you will find that no where in it is there a mention of separation of church and state. It’s pretty simple. Maybe too simple for one as bright as you. It says that congress is not to establish a religion. That’s pretty simple. Just come on down to the level of the founders and you will be OK.
M
mgrfin
Guest
You don’t know what calumny is?
Check out the Baltimore Catechism No 3, #269
If you can’t read, I can’t help you.
D
DustinsDad
Guest
You tell me.
M
mgrfin
Guest
No, read it for yourself
D
DustinsDad
Guest
I am forced to conclude that as with the definitions of schism, heresy and apostasy, you are also ignorant of the definiton of calumny.
Yes, there is a connection here.
S
stmaria
Guest
Wrong again! The First amendment says Congress shall not establish a religion. In wasn’t until 1947 when the Supreme Court came up with this idea of “separation” .
pbs.org/moyers/journal/05112007/separation.html
"The Constitution was totally silent on the subject of religion. The Framers established no national church…The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Jefferson was the one who coined the phrase “wall of separation between Church and State” in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.
Two things were guaranteed: that Congress will not favor, promote, or endow religion; and that Congress shall not impede, obstruct or penalize religion. Government would simply leave religion alone. However, the language in the Bill of Rights was still vague and open to interpretation.
The Supreme Court in 1947 ] unanimously affirmed the separation of church and state and used Jefferson’s letter for the court opinion. Justice Black said, “That wall must be kept high and impregnable.” Most of the Supreme Court’s church-state decisions handed down since this case have been grounded in the Everson standard."
M
mgrfin
Guest
You are a real iconoclastic. A Philistine. Jack Kennedy an Episcopalian - is there nothing sacred from you and your crazies?
Please stop quoting all this reactionary conservative nonsense to me. I’m not interested.
M
mgrfin
Guest
No, you are wrong again. There is separation of Church and State in this country by virtue of the 1st amendment to the Constitution.
You want to argue it was in 1947? Fine. Doesn’t change anything.
J
jim28
Guest
Vatican I defined Dogmatic Definitions not infallibility.
Infallibility is what it used to do so.
B
bobzills
Guest
I agree that this was the teaching of the Catholic Church in the past, but the teaching has been changed since Vatican II and the current Catholic teaching is that a Jew may be saved and that Judaism is salvific for the Jews. Please see “Reflections on Covenant and Mission,” according to which, Walter Cardinal Kasper, president of the Pontifical Commission for the Religious Relations with the Jews, is quoted by the document as saying that “the Church believes that Judaism . . . is salvific for [the Jews] because God is faithful to his promises.” Catholics contributors to “Reflections on Covenant and Mission” argue that “while the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all,” Jews do not need that saving act because they “already dwell in a saving covenant with God.”
As far as I know, Cardinal Kasper is still the right hand man of the present Pope and the present Pope has not asked him to revoke or change anything.
J
jim28
Guest
I don’t know if you noticed the part where this DOGMA says: “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches”. This is a dogmatic definition and cannot be changed. This is the kind of teaching that Vatican I taught was to be considered an “EX CATHEDRA” Definition.
The Church can never change this teaching. It is divinely revealed!
T
TMC
Guest
This thread is getting bizarre as people tie themselves in knots to avoid the meaning of their words and to change the meaning of others. A few quick responses.
The term “seperation of church and state” is generally credited to Thomas Jefferson, although James Madison also used the term frequently. It first shows up in a supreme court decision in the 1870s, not in 1947 (although many people point to that date). Its true that Rehnquist and Scalia have criticised extending the doctrine to point of pushing religion out of the public square, but there is not doubt that the doctrine is meant to keep the mechanisms of Church and State seperate, in pretty much exactly the way Cardinal Ratzinger described. The idea that the founders wrote the First Amendment the way they did, but meant something else, is just revisionism.
This is simply untrue. Infallibility does not depend on the form of the document. It must be an ex cathedra statement on faith and morals, defining a doctrine of faith and morals that must be held by the whole Church. There is no consensus list of infallible doctrines. As the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it “Catholic theologians are agreed in recognising the general principle… but it cannot be said that they are equally unanimous in regard to the concrete applications of this principle.” But is is generally agreed that “As to moral precepts or laws as distinct from moral doctrine, infallibility goes no farther than to protect the Church against passing universal laws which in principle would be immoral.” I think that there would be serious disagreement, at least, over whether statements about the form of government could be infallible.
I suppose if you want to be hyper-technical. The Constitution also does not say that individuals have the right to free speech, that Americans have the right to join the church of their choice, or the right to refuse to answer question from the police, or most other "constitutional rights’. But there is no doubt that is what the Constitution means.
The term “seperation of church and state” is generally credited to Thomas Jefferson, although James Madison also used the term frequently. It first shows up in a supreme court decision in the 1870s, not in 1947 (although many people point to that date). Its true that Rehnquist and Scalia have criticised extending the doctrine to point of pushing religion out of the public square, but there is not doubt that the doctrine is meant to keep the mechanisms of Church and State seperate, in pretty much exactly the way Cardinal Ratzinger described. The idea that the founders wrote the First Amendment the way they did, but meant something else, is just revisionism.
I agree with this statement, which is very different then advocating a theocracy. All men should follow Christ’s teaching in all things. This is a very different thing than putting the Church in charge of the State, or then using State power to attempt to force people to follow Christ’s teaching. This same statement would apply equally to businesses, for example. Businesses should be run in a Christian manner. That does not mean the Church should own the means of production.
Huh? Did he do non-Catholic theology on the side, while being the head of the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith during working hours? The Head of the Church organ charged with interpreting the faith said that Church and State should be seperate, (which is not saying that the Church should have no influence over the State). That man is now Pope. You suggest that while he was head of the congregation his teachings directly contradicted infallible teachings?
B
bobzills
Guest
Perhaps, what you say is true to some extent, but the teaching has already been changed since Vatican II, so it is a moot point.
M
mgrfin
Guest
You didn’t quote your source, so we are all the more confused.
Just because the statement says ‘firmly believes, professes and preaches…’ this is not automatically an ex cathedra statement.
ExCathedra statements are from the Holy Father only. He has to intend to define, and, it has to concern faith and morals. So, you do not have an automatic statement of infallibility when the “Church” teaches ‘ex cathedra’. The Church doesn’t teach ‘ex cathedra’; the Holy Father does.
The Holy Father has spoken infallibly very few times. It is not in every encyclical; it is rarely. He spoke infallibly on the Immaculate Conception; he spoke infallibly on Infallibility. Maybe one other time. So. let’s be careful about the Pope speaking infallibily - it is a very rare thing. Maybe three times, maybe five times in the history of the Papacy.
peace
- Status