Separation of Church and State: Good or Bad?

[EnchantedEve]

Most of the so called traditionalist popes were quite weak spiritually and more concerned with the temporal than the spiritual. Hence the importance of preserving ritual and temporal power which doesn’t impact how the flock is shepherded or mirror what Jesus taught.

Why construct temporal kingdoms in the fashion that the Jews expected if Jesus said that there wouldn’t be an earthly kingdom in the fashion the Jews expected?

Now that we have the churchly palaces, it doesn’t make sense to destroy them, but to say they are tradition doesn’t mean they are of Jesus.

Again, pure conjecture. It is truly sick that you make the shockingly and unbelievable claim that the “traditionalists” popes were spiritually weak, indicating little knowledge of papal biographies. Charles Coulombe’s Lives of the Popes would correct that, or better, Butler’s Lives of the Saints. Is there some axe to grind against Tradition? How is the temporal power of the Church opposed to what Christ taught? As the earlier poster showed, “On earth as it is in heaven.”

Is there is ample evidence in the New Testament that there was an expectation that there would be a temporal rule of Christ on earth, even though that is not our ultimate or even primary goal, as it was with the Jews, nor is this earth our true homeland.

Again, giving glory to God is not of Jesus? “And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me. For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always. She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.” (St. Mark 14 6-8) Our temporal welfare, how we we eat, and wherewithal we are clothed, should not always be our primary concern, but giving glory to God. We love our brothers and sisters to give glory to the Almighty in His works, not because we were all created equal. If we were not God’s children, this would mean nothing. So glorifying the Lord means more than caring for the temporal welfare of others, as we would be reduced to, but giving beauty and adoration to God in worship, study, and talent as well. Thus the men of old believed, and thus we should believe now.

"Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? … “Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” (St. Matthew, 6 25, 31-33)

Christ is Tradition, and Tradition is Christ. They are inseperable, a seamless garment, and to say otherwise is simply false. The Kingdom of God comes first, and all good works come under it, no matter their nature, and they all are for the greater glory of God, even if they are vain works in your view.

 

[mjakemccoy]

Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. No separation there.

Amen, Amen, Amen! Short, sweet, and a truth that cuts as a 2 edged sword.

 

[Lycorth]

Please tell us where in the Gospels Our Lord taught the “potentiality” and equality you envision.

I’d like to hear an answer to that. This is Jesus Christ and the Gospels we’re talking about here, not Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto

Is there some axe to grind against Tradition?

I suspect that is the case. I fear she is paying heed to anti-traditionalist sources (no doubt cultural Marxists through and through) and letting the tempting siren song of modernism influence her. I pray she recovers her senses

 

[portarica]

…

Those who offer the Body and Blood of Christ deserve decent places to live in worthy of their station. The Church deserves all the opulence the Lord blessed it with; did it never occur to you that the material richness of the Church was God’s reward for steadfastly preserving and promoting the Faith in the turbulent years after Rome’s fall and the dangerous times before, when Christians were murdered for the Faith?

The Church never sought temporal blessings, but God rewarded it thusly. Just because there are riches present, doesn’t mean there is evil and greed there as well. The Church uses its opulence to glorify the Lord with beauty and administer to the people; a poor Church could not afford to carry the Cross around the world and protect the faithful when inevitable dangers fell.

I think you need to look beyond the nice residences and pretty vestments and see the human beings beneath. Do not judge as the world judges.

No it never occurred to me that the earthly riches were a reward for acting as good shepherds.

But it did occur to me that when the Medicis became popes they liked to live in the comfort that there families were accustomed to.

The supposition that somehow having earthly palaces enables the church to better serve the poor is much more a product of bovine digestion than Jesus’ teachings.

Peace

Peace

 

[EnchantedEve]

No it never occurred to me that the earthly riches were a reward for acting as good shepherds.

But it did occur to me that when the Medicis became popes they liked to live in the comfort that there families were accustomed to.

The supposition that somehow having earthly palaces enables the church to better serve the poor is much more a product of bovine digestion than Jesus’ teachings.

Peace

Peace

Considering it has often been the poor of this country and others who worked, volunteered, and donated time and money to raise these homes of Christ, perhaps we should inquire to them as to why they so desired to waste their time and money on something they did not need.

 

[janet_baker76]

The supposition that somehow having earthly palaces enables the church to better serve the poor is much more a product of bovine digestion than Jesus’ teachings.

The history book Stripping the Altars gives thorough details as to the source of the very many artifacts used in by the Church. It gives the names of the donors, the artists, the dedications requested, and precise descriptions of the artifacts. Some of the items were expensive and some were humble. They were an outpouring of love, most of all for the Blessed Sacrament. It is so terribly racist toward the poor to assume that they would rather eat or wear their surplus rather than insure the rich celebration of their Lord and Savior. Even the communists would not permit this–has our Portorica never heard the song ‘Give Us Bread But Give Us Roses’ at a labor day celebration? Christ Himself permitted the woman to anoint His feet with the expensive ungent, although He never acted aloof or spared Himself and in fact of course turned about and washed His apostles’ feet. We shall always have the poor, He said to Judas, who argued that the ungent would have bought ever so much for them.

Nor is generosity in the pursuit of an ideal something the poor need to be ‘educated’ against. It is what makes the tin roof and beans for dinner bearable, and even lovelier than the boards of the rich. Don’t make it out to be a leftist error–it’s only a left-wing error, what was called by the old Left to be an infantile disorder, with complete contempt. Those who argue it have never lived among the poor and have never loved anything so much as to give up a farthing for it, or they could not argue it as a principle, knowing how important these things are for devotion. Faugh, hearts of zombies.

 

[portarica]

The history book Stripping the Altars gives thorough details as to the source of the very many artifacts used in by the Church. It gives the names of the donors, the artists, the dedications requested, and precise descriptions of the artifacts. Some of the items were expensive and some were humble. They were an outpouring of love, most of all for the Blessed Sacrament. It is so terribly racist toward the poor to assume that they would rather eat or wear their surplus rather than insure the rich celebration of their Lord and Savior. Even the communists would not permit this–has our Portorica never heard the song ‘Give Us Bread But Give Us Roses’ at a labor day celebration? Christ Himself permitted the woman to anoint His feet with the expensive ungent, although He never acted aloof or spared Himself and in fact of course turned about and washed His apostles’ feet. We shall always have the poor, He said to Judas, who argued that the ungent would have bought ever so much for them.

Nor is generosity in the pursuit of an ideal something the poor need to be ‘educated’ against. It is what makes the tin roof and beans for dinner bearable, and even lovelier than the boards of the rich. Don’t make it out to be a leftist error–it’s only a left-wing error, what was called by the old Left to be an infantile disorder, with complete contempt. Those who argue it have never lived among the poor and have never loved anything so much as to give up a farthing for it, or they could not argue it as a principle, knowing how important these things are for devotion. Faugh, hearts of zombies.

To extrapolate a tolerance for palaces from anointing Jesus’ feet is a pretty big stretch.

But it also explains why we can ignore the rest of Jesus’ teachings about exaltation. And that is the point of referring to that episode as allowing for all manner of royal trappings.

After all if a patron is offering gold for indulgences and to have his or her donation memorialized, it would be in bad taste to ask them to use their wealth to help the least instead.

Why do you think we have the new pastors renovating wealthy churches when they get their new assignments? Is it because helping the parishes that are closing instead of renovating the wealthy ones is not in accord with what Jesus taught?

Peace

 

[janet_baker76]

Why do you think we have the new pastors renovating wealthy churches when they get their new assignments? Is it because helping the parishes that are closing instead of renovating the wealthy ones is not in accord with what Jesus taught?

Would you please give a concrete example? Otherwise this is smoke.

 

[portarica]

Would you please give a concrete example? Otherwise this is smoke.

A great example just a few years back was the new Cathedral in LA. ( at about 200million).

Since most of us here are catholics are any of those here, in parishes spending money on unneeded renovations? And for those that are in parishes that may not have much in funds have the “richer” parishes nearby asked to help you guys out?

Have any parishes forestalled the new carpets or A/C to help the least get their lives together?

As to the “smoke” reference , are you suggesting that I mentioned that some parishes waste money on needless stuff to cover for some nefarious purpose?

Peace

 

[EnchantedEve]

To extrapolate a tolerance for palaces from anointing Jesus’ feet is a pretty big stretch.

But it also explains why we can ignore the rest of Jesus’ teachings about exaltation. And that is the point of referring to that episode as allowing for all manner of royal trappings.

After all if a patron is offering gold for indulgences and to have his or her donation memorialized, it would be in bad taste to ask them to use their wealth to help the least instead.

Why do you think we have the new pastors renovating wealthy churches when they get their new assignments? Is it because helping the parishes that are closing instead of renovating the wealthy ones is not in accord with what Jesus taught?

Peace

This entire line of thought pursues the belief that money spent on churches is not also being spent for the care and welfare of the poor.

However, again there is a over-emphasis on the evangelical teachings of Christ and an ignorance of the broader Holy Scriptures. Did not God have the Temple in Jerusalem built for his glory? Did he not order the use of gold, gems, and fine linens for use in His worship? All on earth belongs to the Lord, we are but His stewards, and to withdraw the breadth of His beautiful creation from His legitimate worship and accolade is not for us to decide.

Was not Our Lord buried in over 100 pounds of the finest spices and aloes, and bound in fine linen? Was this a waste of money on the part of Joseph of Arimathea, in honour of His Body?

All of God’s beauty, rendered in His service, is not in vain. However, I do agree about many of the renovations, and the LA Cathedral especially. In both these cases, the churches are often ugly, plain, and made of artificial materials. Unlike in the days of old, insufficient money is generally raised from amongst the parishioners (like ourselves) who feel that changes to perfectly good churches are unnecessary. To push these changes forward, the diocese will approve the parish going into monsterous debt by taking out loans, and then say to hope for the best. This very thing happened to my previous parish. The progressivist pastor insisted un “updating” the parish, which the majority of the parish opposed. So, he went to Cardinal Mahoney, got a guarantee on a $9 million loan, wrecked the church, and promptly retired upon its completion, leaving the parish holding the bag. 7 years later they are still in debt. The parish went from 3400 families to less than 1500. Thankfully, they have a large group of well-to do elderly who have helped out, otherwise the parish would be sunk. This is a scandal of untold proportions

None of this relates to the cathedrals, mission churches, or parishes of old, built with little debt, volunteer work, a lot of fundraising, and donations. The big parish in my town, the largest Catholic parish west of the Missisipi, was built in 1958, is completely inlaid with Italian marble and gold, and was completed debt free. The poor were certainly not neglected in this, as the parish boasts a full time soup kitchen which provides two meals a day, showers and clothes to all who need them. God has provided enough resources on earth for us to do both, and thankfully we often do.

Portarica, on this matter I follow your point. Plaques in parishes, indicating who donated what, I find distasteful. In the Medieval era, artists normally worked anonymously to glorify God by their works, and not themselves.

Parochial and diocesan leadership now often are merely vast bureaucracies, a result of our socialist, centralized, and commercialized age. However, the solution of turning the Church into a secularized charitable institution who drops Jesus’ Holy Name in prayer when the need arises will not fix this. A return and solidifying of the spiritual, transcendent, and perennial values of old will embark us on the path of true reform. Only when people begin to live in a state of being, of harmony with Divine Providence in all ways, rather than in a dizzying state of ever-hopeful “becoming,” will we be able to see what is truly of value.

“For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.” (St. Paul’s 2nd Letter to Corinthians, 6:2)

Now is the appointed time. When we act and believe that Christ’s reign is now, and not some far flung never-never land of that great golden tomorrow, then we shall know His Path, then we shall know His Way.

“She told the most wonderful stories, because she realized one upon a time was really here and now.”

 

[portarica]

Was not Our Lord buried in over 100 pounds of the finest spices and aloes, and bound in fine linen? Was this a waste of money on the part of Joseph of Arimathea, in honour of His Body?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Where did we get the info about the 100 pounds of spices and aloe? Even if it was 25 pounds of spices that would be terribly expensive in those times and so yes it would be a waste of money for any purpose.

Joe should have been thinking about how to best use his funds to spread the word of Jesus.

The whole concept of doing great and honorable somethings for God is sort of contrary to the notion that God is already all powerful, all knowing and omnipotent. Jesus wasn’t about doing stuff for Him, but about serving others for Him.

Peace

 

[EnchantedEve]

Was not Our Lord buried in over 100 pounds of the finest spices and aloes, and bound in fine linen? Was this a waste of money on the part of Joseph of Arimathea, in honour of His Body?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Where did we get the info about the 100 pounds of spices and aloe? Even if it was 25 pounds of spices that would be terribly expensive in those times and so yes it would be a waste of money for any purpose.

Joe should have been thinking about how to best use his funds to spread the word of Jesus.

The whole concept of doing great and honorable somethings for God is sort of contrary to the notion that God is already all powerful, all knowing and omnipotent. Jesus wasn’t about doing stuff for Him, but about serving others for Him.

Peace

Well, it comforts me to know that there is someone out there who feels they are not only more knowledgable about what pleases Our Lord and what His teaching are than either His Eastern or Western Churches, but also His Apostles and those closest to Him. Where does one get such direct insight into Christ’s will, one apparently missed by so many saints and popes (All corrupt and decadent, I assume)? Do tell, we would benefit from Divine insight.

As regards to the spices, any number of Scriptural references will do, St. Mark 16:1-3, St. Luke 23:56, St. John 19:40. None of them specifically state 100 pounds, but that was the Jewish custom.

I will further add that if we followed your reasoning to it’s logical conclusion, we would not worship God at all. True?

 

[Phil_Stone]

A while back my aunt warned me that a new Anti-Catholic children’s film was about to be released. So I read the books it was based upon, and saw the film, and noticed the book was not Anti-Catholic, it was Anti-Authoritarian. It clearly differentiated the religous group in question from The Church, and even Our world in various ways, including souls that took the visible form of animals, no heavier than air flight, and a Pope named John Calvin. In the second volume, when action shifted to Our world, the nefarious plans were not connected to The Church at all. And in the film, which inspired the concern, all robvious eferences to the Authoritarian group being a religion were removed. So no problem, right?

Unfortunately on this thread it seems that to many, The Church is about Authoritarianism, and so to attack the latter must attack the former.

One can try to defend life in the Dark and Middle Ages, but in the end one cannot escape the fact that it was Feudalism My ancestors fled a Catholic country, fled feudalism, and in spite of its apologists, my Dad always said it was like slavery. Women were chattel. No one went back because it was better under feudalism.

In the end the idea of a state religion fails on the false belief that there is a Church morally fit to rule better than the people, and that even if there were, it would be right to force people to “salvation,” rather than let them use the free will that God supposedly gave them. The Church in the US has made it clear in the priest abuse scandal, that trusting the Church to police its own is a disaster.

 

[janet_baker76]

A great example just a few years back was the new Cathedral in LA. ( at about 200million).

Since most of us here are catholics are any of those here, in parishes spending money on unneeded renovations? And for those that are in parishes that may not have much in funds have the “richer” parishes nearby asked to help you guys out?

Have any parishes forestalled the new carpets or A/C to help the least get their lives together?

As to the “smoke” reference , are you suggesting that I mentioned that some parishes waste money on needless stuff to cover for some nefarious purpose?

Peace

Porto, by ‘smoke’ I meant as in ‘smoke and mirrors,’ or empty assertions without proof or content.

I must admit I had to read most of your post here twice–there might be a missing comma or something!-- but I think in the end you still have not given me any concrete example yet of your assertion in the previous post, that it was absolutely true that money was flowing toward the richer parishes, if I may capture it like that. So we don’t can’t have that conversation, then. You need concrete examples to say you’ve proven your point.

But that point isn’t the one you made earlier, if I understand you. The point you seemed to be making earlier is that the needs of people today should be attended to before any kind of pomp or glitter or rich–hey, bling bling–liturgical accoutrements, or architecture either. ‘The churches should live poorer that the people might have bread’–that kind of idea, right? (Although I must mention that in a previous previous post when you said that very thing in so many words, but had no proof that the people referenced agreed with you, you never answered my citation of a published history book called Stripping the Altars which says many poor people happpily contributed to the richness of medieval churches with a citation or fact of your own–you made me doubt you have lived with any Catholic poor people in your life.)

Anyhoo, just by accident I ran across a paragraph in They Have Uncrowned Him (p. 129)by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre discussing the liberal philosophers Maritain and Teilard de Chardin, both very influential in the years before Vatican II (he was exposing them, not praising them). And guess what, they were saying something like you were saying, maybe more extensively and with some twists. It’s basically–I won’t quote the half page exactly, you’d kill me, but I think my summary is accurate–that because evolution was an on-going process, mankind has continued to evolve, has evolved beyond the Church of medieval times, and will keep evolving in the future. That mankind does not need a Church anymore, and that in fact, mankind grows in proportion to the degree that the Church diminishes. So you’re in good company, because that’s like saying that if man needs bread (or medical care etc etc etc) the Church should diminish in some fashion or other and give it. Money shouldn’t flow toward rich churches, nor toward any churches. I think that kind of sums up the main point of your last two posts.

I say “good company.” The Church has not yet condemned the teachings of these guys, and Benedict XVI quoted Teilard de Chardin in an encyclical or praised him or somesuch last year. But they were liberals to the heart and soul, which political position the Church firmly opposed until John XXIII. They were the darlings of Vatican II, along with Yves Congor and Karl Rahner. Maybe that’s your posse, in case you weren’t sure where you got your ideas (it’s in the very air we breathe, Portorica: kill the Church however you can).

But you seem able only so far to follow the general outline. You really need concrete data to back yourself up. They were a bit thin on those things as well, IMHO. Or you could consider the other side, which is that the Church is a good thing, ought to grow, and very strong, too, the poorest of the poor like the bling, there’s richer spiritual fare for those who wish sainthood or in my case, prettygoodhood, and that mankind is a sinner and should get over himself.

Yours in Christ the King,

 

[EnchantedEve]

A while back my aunt warned me that a new Anti-Catholic children’s film was about to be released. So I read the books it was based upon, and saw the film, and noticed the book was not Anti-Catholic, it was Anti-Authoritarian. It clearly differentiated the religous group in question from The Church, and even Our world in various ways, including souls that took the visible form of animals, no heavier than air flight, and a Pope named John Calvin. In the second volume, when action shifted to Our world, the nefarious plans were not connected to The Church at all. And in the film, which inspired the concern, all robvious eferences to the Authoritarian group being a religion were removed. So no problem, right?

Unfortunately on this thread it seems that to many, The Church is about Authoritarianism, and so to attack the latter must attack the former.

One can try to defend life in the Dark and Middle Ages, but in the end one cannot escape the fact that it was Feudalism My ancestors fled a Catholic country, fled feudalism, and in spite of its apologists, my Dad always said it was like slavery. Women were chattel. No one went back because it was better under feudalism.

In the end the idea of a state religion fails on the false belief that there is a Church morally fit to rule better than the people, and that even if there were, it would be right to force people to “salvation,” rather than let them use the free will that God supposedly gave them. The Church in the US has made it clear in the priest abuse scandal, that trusting the Church to police its own is a disaster.

Sir, I am not following what you are saying. How could your father flee feudalism? It has not existed in 400 years! What country could this be? I am afraid I do not follow anything of what your saying, either regarding slavery (?) or “chattel” women. Please elaborate.

No one said that the Church need rule anything, only that the state should acknowledge the Church as the one true religion, nothing further. Where do you read all these other ideas into it? Who said that people would be forced to convert to anything? Or have their free will expunged?

As for the Church poorly policing itself, oh, the secular state is so much better! Trillions in debts, corrupt, debauched politicians, killing millions in immoral, unjust wars, destroying civil liberties, overlooking laws, yes, this is the pinnacle of modern achievement! At least with the Church you can withhold donations, try withholding your taxes! The priest scandal is a flash in the pan compared to the untold evils of the modern state. You really think this is an improvement over the Medieval era? Witness Africa’s regimes, Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, China, Cuba etc. This is better? This is progress?

Those who feel that modernity has improved over the Medieval era substantially are both poorly informed about the Medieval age and the Modern world.

 

[janet_baker76]

There are a number of historians who write about the worsening position of women in the sects that grew up after Luther. Luther himself entertained the idea of polygamy for a while. Certainly many sects fled to this country from other protestant sects. There were protestant ‘state churches’ in Europe following the Reformation, in Norway for example. Since they were all heresies, they all deformed the faith and the truth in various ways, and women (as always) suffered very much. By the time this country was founded, they were fleeing protestantism, not the Faith.

 

[RonTheNewJew]

Here is what Pope Benedict said last year on this topic.

The Catholic Church is eager to share the richness of the Gospel’s social message,…She carries out this mission fully aware of the respective autonomy and competence of Church and State. Indeed, we may say that the distinction between religion and politics is a specific achievement of Christianity and one of its fundamental historical and cultural contributions.

The Church is equally convinced that State and religion are called to support each other as they together serve the personal and social well-being of all (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 76). This harmonious cooperation between Church and State requires ecclesial and civic leaders to carry out their public duties with undaunted concern for the common good. By cultivating a spirit of honesty and impartiality, and by keeping justice their aim, civil and ecclesial leaders earn the trust of the people and enhance a sense of the shared responsibility of all citizens to promote a civilization of love. All should be motivated by the desire to serve rather than to gain personally or to benefit a privileged few. Everyone shares in the task of strengthening public institutions so as to safeguard them from the corruption of factionalism and elitism.

In this matter of the church and state supporting each other, freedom of conscience is a Judeo-Christian ideal. It is the separation of organized religious functions and practices from the civic, non-religious functions of the state, that guarantees that religion can continue to have a recognized, honorable role in promoting concepts of religious and other freedoms, and also promote the ideals of producing individuals whose sense of self-worth is identified in daily acts of kindness and generosity that most often go unheralded, unreported.

Any mixing of spiritual practices, which are the most personal things people become engaged in, with the necessarily forced, legal requirements embodied in civil and criminal law, rob religion of the necessity that individuals choose it, or do not choose it. Thus, under such circumstances, as happened in Europe during the dark ages of religious rule over the consciences of ordinary members while telling them that they would be standing up for Christ by demanding that state authorities persecute by limiting the commercial activities of people whose religious practices were different than their own, even though the dissenters were also monotheistic, was the result of having no constitutions separating church and state functions.

A public sense of guilt led to reduced spiritual growth which led to members feeling that they could earn their way to salvation by being “religious” rather than spiritual. The public didn’t feel they had any power to influence the state to respect the right of people to dissent from the majority of either the church or the state. Learned helplessness. Such helplessness is not what Jesus died to promote. Spirituality only exists when people can freely choose it. Their personal, private religious activities and observances are what promote their own personal spirituality. Ministers, priests, rabbi’s, imams, should teach their congregants to study the scriptures and religious writings for themselves, and act as God guides each one as his or her faith (a personal thing, not corporate) grows.

 

[portarica]

Well, it comforts me to know that there is someone out there who feels they are not only more knowledgable about what pleases Our Lord and what His teaching are than either His Eastern or Western Churches, but also His Apostles and those closest to Him. Where does one get such direct insight into Christ’s will, one apparently missed by so many saints and popes (All corrupt and decadent, I assume)? Do tell, we would benefit from Divine insight.

As regards to the spices, any number of Scriptural references will do, St. Mark 16:1-3, St. Luke 23:56, St. John 19:40. None of them specifically state 100 pounds, but that was the Jewish custom.

I will further add that if we followed your reasoning to it’s logical conclusion, we would not worship God at all. True?

You draw some amazing conclusions from what I post.

I said palaces don’t seem to be particularly in the form of the anything Jesus described and that means I know more than his apostles?

Show me where I contradict anything his apostles did or say. Better yet, show me where an apostle built a palace.

As to the Jewish tradition of 100lbs of spices, show me how that could even be possible given the cost of spices in those days and the poverty of most people.

As to having more information at our finger tips today than popes knew in the past, that is within the grasp of more people today just because of technology.

It doesn’t make me “better” than a pope for knowing we shouldn’t burn people to death because they aren’t good catholics. Its just common sense and a more developed realization of what Jesus taught. And it wasn’t something that I made up, but something that was taught to me in years of catholic instruction.

When more developed conclusions are arrived at in modern times that contradict what was held in the past, it doesn’t mean that what Jesus taught was wrong, but that what Jesus taught is found to apply to more situations.

Most issues that arise in the church and society for that matter, do not arise because the previously held is “too” Christlike, but not enough.

The standards of day to day behavior in med times were much further away from what Jesus taught, than in today’s modern times. Sometimes we confuse obedience to weaker standards as being more acceptable than falling short of higher standards.

Sort of like giving an A to a person taking basic arithmetic and a B+ to a person taking advanced calculus. Which one do you want to figure out your taxes?

Peace

 

[mjakemccoy]

Thus, under such circumstances, as happened in Europe during the dark ages of religious rule over the consciences of ordinary members while telling them that they would be standing up for Christ by demanding that state authorities persecute by limiting the commercial activities of people whose religious practices were different than their own, even though the dissenters were also monotheistic, was the result of having no constitutions separating church and state functions.

I certainly don’t think anyone here is claiming infallibility of the medeival era, there were sinners then as there are now, within the state and even in the Church. The “dark ages” as you would claim came after Christ (the Light of the world) came. Are you claiming failure? Be careful here. And your so-called “enlightenment” came after Luther, does this not put up a red flag? If you want to speak of hard times in the Church speak of Rome in the first 3 centuries. Our Church survived persecutions that amassed 100,000’s of martyrs, all but one Apostle, and all but one Pope in the first 200 years. And they weren’t slaughtered like cattle because they called for peace and happiness and everyone to freely celebrate their faith as they chose. They came with salt and light, and there were harsh condemnations of paganism and ungodliness, and this infuriorated the emperors. Who were these Christians to try to tell them how to live?

Constantine came to power in the 4th century after being inspired by a vision and allowed Christians to finally gather publicly. He created a state religion, banned crucifixion and called the Council of Nicea. Do you think those Christians that had survived the persecutions thought this was a bad idea? The new balance of power wasn’t without battles of the wills, but when they wrote a law, the Church could weigh in. Lawmakers actually had to try to reconcile themselves with God. Bishop Ambrose had emperors in Rome and Constantinople cowering. He reminded Valentinian that it was a Christian prince’s duty to suppress pagan worship. He made Emperor Theodosius imitate David in a long penance before he allowed him to receive Communion, after his administration massacred 7,000. Both cases are severe violations of the separation. Can someone explain how this is unchristian?

If you’re asking who this Ambrose was, he converted Augustine, who every Protestant denomination holds in very high regard. It’s an interesting point that this union of Church and State was done about 50 years before there was an official canon of the Bible. A millenium before the idea of sola scriptora. Without this balance of power a strong case could be made as to whether or not we would have an official Bible. But God is good. This Bible of course is different than yours, 7 Greek books that Luther later tried to claim apocrypha, denying early Church precedence, and even Jewish precedence in the time of Christ. But read up on Augustine and the Synod of Hippo and the Council of Carthage, and others before him that led to the canon, Ireneaus (first to claim our 4 Gospels as canonical), Athanasius (first to claim our 27 NT books as canonical, he was also not afraid to lay into the state, though banished 7 times by the state), the Jewish Council of Jabneh 100 AD, and Origen (neither of our churches accept his list of books or Trinitarian doctrine, but still a very influential figure in the early church), Jerome (translated the first single language Bible, the Latin Vulgate, he challenged the 7 books under the influence of post-Jabneh rabbis and is the precedent Luther claimed, but he did translate those books as the rest of the Church including Augustine had agreed upon). Weigh these early father’s teachings and Bible interpretations with that of the so-called fathers of the reformation, which set out to reform the Church but only started more churches festering division. There is much that has been forgotten that shouldn’t have. But when we try to throw out tradition, history that is, we can make up what we want. Christ is the same now as he was then and will be, do not be carried away by strange teachings. History is fundamental to Christianity.

Today legislators fall back on the separation, and for some reason they don’t think they’ll be accountable for their actions in the halls of government. Those actions for some reason seem separate than personal actions outside of those halls that would be judged under the law of Almighty God. That by abiding by the laws of the land we think we will not be held accountable to God for violating His law. You are trying to box God in, that He is only allowed in sacred halls on Sunday, and in poor houses, the rest belongs to us, we the people. The separation we know today was inspired by “enlightened” thinkers who have spawned Marx and Keynes. They have abandoned the philosophies of Aquinas, Augustine, Paul, and even Jesus. Is the philosophy of freedom of religion (not conscience) infallible? Why do you treat the words of deist philosophers so much higher than the Christian tradition, or the Jewish tradition for that matter? We have been called to be the salt and the light, but many of us hide our light under a box, only taking it out at church on Sunday. Let us stand on a rooftop and let it shine! God be with you.

 

[janet_baker76]

I’d like to repeat what I mentioned in an earlier post, because it helped me make sense of what so many people hold as a common belief now–people from such diverse walks of life and backgrounds that it seems unlikely that they’d all arrive at the same opinion without some pattern operating.

Before Vatican II Jacques Maritain built upon the ideas of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. The latter was a Jesuit and an anthropologist who believed not only that man had evolved, but was still evolving by leaps and bounds. Maritain pushed that notion further: that mankind had evolved beyond the Church. Human beings had progressed to the point that they did not need the spiritual or material services of any church, but (pertinent to our discussion in this thread) if they were to continue to evolve, to the degree that mankind moved forward, the Church had to die. The energy or material for the evolution of humanity comes from the devolution of the Faith.

Vatican II used these ideas in several of the constitutions, and indeed the wildly optimistic tone of the Council come from this platform (which is, of course, a denial of original sin). Throughout the constitutions mankind’s wonderful progress is continually referenced. It is almost a mantra!

And so all kinds of permutations and applications of this notion may be found: money/power/attention should flow from the Church to the poor – to poorer churches – to education – to various causes in social justice issues. Money/power/attention should never go toward ritual or worship. Specifically power should go away from the Church and into the hands of democracy. Any retention of riches or power or beauty by the Church is seen as robbing – whom? Mankind.

In the past, riches and power and beauty retained and used by the Church was not seen thus. And really, why should it be? The Church is men and women, too, there is no absolute need for this great divide to be established. And against all evidence! Why is it so easy to forget the universities–the first and only western universities–were set up by the Church? Art and music and literature and publishing were sponsored. Hospitals were set up. It is easy to forget these things were done by the power of the Church, because we adopted a completely different mindset with the promulgation of the evolutionary ideas of a group of philosophers of which Maritain and Teilhard de Chardin were spokesmen in this case. The Church isn’t supposed to do any of these things–mankind is suposed to do them, alone and never for God but only for itself, in order to grow and progress and evolve. If the Church does them, that’s domination. This idea was taken into our Church! (But not for long, may God grant it.)

This particular issue will surely be on the table in the talks between SSPX and the Vatican, since Rome has not yet repudiated this notion and re-asserted the traditional teaching, that there is no progress beyond original sin and mankind will therefore never outgrow the Church, and Archbishop Lefebvre gave it specific attention. So we may still hope to de-fang the ravening wolves.