Sensus Fidelium - Fr Ripperger

  • Thread starter Thread starter billb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
semper_catholicus said:
No, the Athanasian Creed does state that if someone wishes to be saved, they must be catholic.

You are right though, in certain circumstances, if someone is invincibly ignorant, and they follow the natural law to the best of their abilities, they can make it to heaven. Thus doesn’t mean that we don’t make an effort to try to win everyone possible over to the Church. It also doesn’t mean that absolutely everyone who isn’t catholic is invincibly ignorant.

The good thief had baptism of desire.

If is a great act of charity to insist that outside the Church there is no salvation.
Click to expand...
Aren’t all non-Catholic Christians catholic?
 
No. By definition. All should be Catholic but some people reject the Catholic Church.
 
edwest211 said:
No. By definition. All should be Catholic but some people reject the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
I see the word Catholic as a noun and the word catholic as an adjective. One would think on a Catholic forum one would take care to be accurate.
 
If an Anglican wants to become Catholic, there is a process. A friend of mine converted from Methodist to Catholic.
 
No. I think there is some disagreement on what is meant by separation of Church and State. But whatever you call it, it is wrong for the government to try and coerce any sort of acceptance of any religion, including Catholicism, regardless of what traditionalists here will try and tell you.

The phrase “separation of church and state” is somewhat a trigger for a philosophy in which God and morality has no role in secular government. That is probably why there is some misunderstanding.

FC, I would recommend that you balance what is being said in the rather traditional Nineteenth Century corner of the Church with some more current thought on the subject. If you are interested, here is a variety. If not, it wasn’t much a waste of time to post the links.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/religious-liberty

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...t-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

“Ask a Priest: What About Separation of Church and State?” - RC Spirituality

Q: Is there a short answer to the question of separation of church and state? The question seems very misunderstood...
rcspirituality.org rcspirituality.org
 
Last edited:
semper_catholicus said:
Everyone has a duty to be catholic.
Click to expand...
The state cannot coerce this either by force or fear. In the context of church and state, such a duty would be coercive.

I found this in crisis magazine:
We’ll start with a consideration of the merits of the weak version. Indeed, Vatican II does propose that the separation of Church and state can be accepted in certain circumstances. Consider these words of Gaudium et spes :

The Church herself makes use of temporal things insofar as her own mission requires it. She, for her part, does not place her trust in the privileges offered by civil authority. She will even give up the exercise of certain rights which have been legitimately acquired, if it becomes clear that their use will cast doubt on the sincerity of her witness or that new ways of life demand new methods (§76).

There is no suggestion here that the Church’s renunciation of her rights in regard to the state is the ideal, only that sometimes this move might be prudent in order to establish her credibility. This is not a novel teaching of Vatican II.
Click to expand...
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/vatican-ii-separation-church-state-rupture-continuity

The imbibed quote is from Gaudium et Spes, btw. So there is a sense in which it can be considered prudent to have separation of Church and State.
 
Last edited:
That’s not what separation of church and state means. What it actually means is that the state cannot have a state religion

That’s what it actually means in the constitution
 
Last edited:
And God, through the Church, has told us that it is necessary for salvation to be apart of the Church.
 
I am not suggesting that the State coerce someone into becoming catholic. What I’m saying is that the Church and State ought not to be separated.
 
Are you speaking in general, or in the United States? I do think there need be some separation.
FloridaCatholic said:
That’s not what separation of church and state means. What it actually means is that the state cannot have a state religion

That’s what it actually means in the constitution
Click to expand...
Those are two separate issues. Separation of Church and State really has no firm definition. You can see above where the phrase is used in a condemnation by Pope Pius X, but on the same hand there has always been some recognition of separate roles, even in a theocracy. This phrase, used by Thomas Jefferson, was not chosen to be part of the Constitution, and has never been.

But you are right that no part of separation of Church and State is mentioned in the First Amendment.
 
semper_catholicus said:
I am not suggesting that the State coerce someone into becoming catholic. What I’m saying is that the Church and State ought not to be separated.
Click to expand...
semper_catholicus said:
What exactly are you talking about?
Click to expand...
I think the point is that if we did not have the separation we have, we would have the universal healthcare the Church has spoken for. We would build bridges, not walls, as our Pope has suggested. We would welcome those immigrants in the most need, and have a preference for the poor, as per Catholic Social Teaching.
 
I see.

At the same time though, wasn’t it the Church came up with hospitals?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top