Separation of Church and State

[Exalt]

Thank you. Yes, I do HATE liberalism, because, as you said, I believe it will result in the loss of souls - souls that were redeemed at a great price and are loved by God. I believe liberalism, and its sister modernism, is the heresy of our day, and is extremely dangerous. I believe it is responsible, in great part, for the crisis the Church is experience and, since I love the Church, I hate anything that attacks it, and will try, to the best of my ability, to fight it.

I also care about my fellow Catholics who may have been taken in by these errors, and hope to help them by directing them to the encyclical letters of the Popes, which shine the light of truth on these errors.

Interesting. Here’s one thing that you may have not considered (and forgive me if you have): I think one part of the whole liberal movement is the role of unprovable faith. Let me explain. A large part of one’s religion is the idea that there are certain core tenants that, though may be somewhat supported by limited evidence, are taken in on faith. For example, a Christian believes in the truth of the Bible mostly on faith. They believe without strong evidence.

Now, herein lies the problem when relating to other faiths and other denominations. A Catholic such as yourself might take the authority of the Church on faith. That is: yes, there is limited evidence that supports the truth of the Church, you mostly believe that it is the infallible representative of God on earth on faith. But a Muslim, for example, accepts the Qur’an as the infallible word of God. Though there is limited evidence that supports that claim, they mostly accept it on faith.

So how can you criticize a person for accepting one religious conviction on faith and not another?

I think the liberal side of Catholicism has recognized that fact. They realize that most people simply believe in their parent’s religion. And that’s that. They take the truth of Catholicism on faith because their parents told you to. They take the literal truth of the Bible on faith because their parents have. They take the reality of Brahman as truth because their parents have. They take the truth of the Qur’an on faith because of their parents. And so on.

Why should they convert? If it’s because of faith - belief without evidence - then they have no reason to. And the more progressive side of Christian theology has recognized this.

So my real question is this: What’s wrong with that type of thinking?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Interesting. Here’s one thing that you may have not considered (and forgive me if you have): I think one part of the whole liberal movement is the role of unprovable faith. Let me explain. A large part of one’s religion is the idea that there are certain core tenants that, though may be somewhat supported by limited evidence, are taken in on faith. For example, a Christian believes in the truth of the Bible mostly on faith. They believe without strong evidence.

Now, herein lies the problem when relating to other faiths and other denominations. A Catholic such as yourself might take the authority of the Church on faith. That is: yes, there is limited evidence that supports the truth of the Church, you mostly believe that it is the infallible representative of God on earth on faith. But a Muslim, for example, accepts the Qur’an as the infallible word of God. Though there is limited evidence that supports that claim, they mostly accept it on faith.

So how can you criticize a person for accepting one religious conviction on faith and not another?

Very fair questions. Since you asked so honestly and sincerely, I will anwer you the same way. I am pretty sure that we are not going to agree, but I will be honest enough to tell you what I really think.

There is only one God and only one truth. Two things that are opposed cannot both be true.

I believe, as you said about, that the Catholic Church is the true Church. I believe that Jesus was God Incarnate and that He founded the Church. I also believe that the dogmas taught by the Catholic Church are guaranteed to be inherent.

I accept what the Church teaches on faith, but that does not mean that I am forced to blindly accept things that make no sense, or that seem unrealistic. Some people do think that. They think that if someone believes something on faith, it means they are setting aside their reason, and just submitting. That is not the way it is for me. On the contrary, what the Church teaches, and what I believe, make complete sense to me. Just as we all sometimes hear something that we recognize to be true, so too what I believe by faith also brings with it that sense of truth. So it is not as though I am forced to believe something that I don’t think is true.

Now, since I believe what I do, I have no choice but to reject the contrary. If you believe that 2+2 = 4, you must reject the one who claims that 2+2 = 5. If you truly believe the one, you cannot simultaneously accept the other.

I believe in both God and the devil. I believe that God desires us to be saved, but allowes the devil to tempt us.

Just as I believe that God assumed a human nature and founded a Church, I also believe that the devil has moved people to found false religions. You are probably not going to like my next statement, but it is what I believe, and I told you I would be honest with you: I believe that all other religions are of the devil. I think he actually had a part in their origins. Old Testament Judaism would be the exception.

I believe that those who have accepted a false religion on faith, are on the way to hell. While I acknowledge that many people are of other religions because of family or cultural reasons, it does not change the fact that they are following a religion that I believe was invented by the devil to lead souls away from the true religion, and thus to hell.

Now, God assists men of all religions to come to the truth. He does this through, what is known as, actual grace. These are inspirations that lead men to the truth. All men receive these grace, which is why many people of other religions convert. They convert to the true faith because they follow the inspirations of God which lead them there; and those of the true faith fall away from it because they followed the deceptions of the devil, and/or were deceived by evil men.

Ufortunately, man is not born into this world justified, and false religions do not have the ability to justify the soul. Therefore, it does not matter how sincere a person is, or how good they follow a false religion, since these religions do not have the means to save them

continue

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

continuation

Exalt:

I think the liberal side of Catholicism has recognized that fact. They realize that most people simply believe in their parent’s religion. And that’s that. They take the truth of Catholicism on faith because their parents told you to. They take the literal truth of the Bible on faith because their parents have. They take the reality of Brahman as truth because their parents have. They take the truth of the Qur’an on faith because of their parents. And so on.

Why should they convert?

Faith in just anything is not what saves us. We are not saved because we believe what someone has told us on faith.

Real faith, supernatural faith, is an interior virtue. It is not what many people think it is. Faith is a supernatural virtue that helps us to believe what God has revealed. That is what faith is. It is not just believing something on faith, it is an interior virtue that help us to believe the truths that God has revealed. That understanding of faith might take a minute for you to grasp, since it is quite different than what we are used to hearing in the world. We are usually told that “faith” is simply what someone believes, but that is not supernatural faith. That might be a human faith, but not the theological virtue of faith.

If it’s because of faith - belief without evidence - then they have no reason to [convert]. And the more progressive side of Christian theology has recognized this.

That is because they consider all religions “more or less good and praisworthy” (Pius X, Pascendi). They don’t realize that believing what is taught by a false religion will not save anyone, and is actually the way to loose faith.

As mentioned above, faith is a supernatural virtue that helps us to believe what God has revealed (through the Church). When someone rejects a truth that God has revealed, and adhered to an error of a false religion, they loose supernatural faith. Just as mortal sin removes supernatural charity (grace) from the soul, so too does the rejection of a truth revealed by God remove supernatural faith from the soul.

Now, supernatural “faith is the foundation of the supernatural life” (Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, I think). Thus, without supernatural faith, a person cannot have the supernatural virtue of charity (grace), which is what gives the soul a share in Divine Life, and what saves us.

So my real question is this: What’s wrong with that type of thinking?

Let me summarize: Faith, understood to mean “belief in something” does not save. We must have supernatural faith; and supernatural faith requires that we believe what is true - what God has revealed. Believing a lie will not save. Only supernatural faith, combined with supernatural hope and charity, will save.

Another important point to remember is, as I mentioned above, that man is not born into this world justified, and false religions do not provide the means to justify the soul.

A person cannot be a Catholic and believe what you said above because it is contrary to what the Church teaches. Those who believe what you wrote above, and who call themselves “progressive Catholics” are, in reality, Catholics who do not believe what the Church teaches.

Such Catholics have fallen into the “deadly sin” of indifferentism (Mirari Vos). Indifferentism is a sin against the thoelogical virtue of faith (Baltimore Catechism) that I described above, because it is a denial of what the Church teaches.

Thus, those Catholics who you described above actually do not have any real faith. They have lost the theological virtue of faith through their denial of what they Church teaches, and, since faith is the foundation of the supernatural life, they cannot be saved.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

*Vehemnter vos *Pius X
3. That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error

I believe that prior to Vatican II Spain was a Catholic state.Catholicism was protected in its constitution. After the Vatcian II document on Religious Liberty, Spain changed it’s constitution and gave all religions equal protection.SInce that time Spain has ineffect become a godless state.Pornography, abortion and gay marriage now have legal protection. This never would have happened if Spain would not have adopted Vatican II’s Religious Liberty.

It’s kind of frustrating to correspond with you because you like to add things to what I say. I said that sometimes things are unenforceable and would cause grave harm merely to show that circumstances are *conceivable - *and our theology has always recognized this - in which it would be okay to not have established Catholicism. Then you go and imply that I am saying abortion should be legal. You also imply that I must believe the disestablishment in Spain was definitely good. I never said either of those things, yet you’re throwing them out there and clouding the issue.

The question is: does the Church demand every single State to establish Catholicism as the state religion? When faced with evidence that the answer might be “no” you start obfuscating with cries of “but abortion shouldn’t be legal” and “look what happened in Spain.” Why not try to actually discuss the central issue rather than distract from it with peripherals?

 

[ncjohn]

You are acting as though I am asking to to submit to something that I am saying, which is contrary to what the Church teaches. On the contrary, I am simply suggesting that you read what the Church teaches, in the form of these encyclicals.

Yes, you’re asking me and others to submit to your interpretation of what the Church teaches, which is not what the Church actually teaches.

And believe it or not, you’re not the only person who has ever read those documents. I have not read all of them but I have read enough of them, and all of the Vatican II documents, to understand what liberalism and modernism are. I also know that there are those who look for a “liberal” and a “modernist” behind every tree and who will apply the term to anyone who happens to agree with the teachings of Vatican II. The fact that the overwhelming majority of those at Vatican II agreed with the documents as promulgated apparently holds no weight against your decision that they are in fact nothing more than liberal perversions.

The danger in trying to take minority positions that did not find support in the Council is that following such logic would then enable others to do the same with previous councils. One could take the very vocal minority position against infallibility from Vatican I based on your ideas, for instance. If we get to pick and choose between Councils and their teachings then the whole thing is up for grabs.

You say, in a post to to Exalt

I believe that those who have accepted a false religion on faith, are on the way to hell. While I acknowledge that many people are of other religions because of family or cultural reasons, it does not change the fact that they are following a religion that I believe was invented by the devil to lead souls away from the true religion, and thus to hell.

This is not what the Church teaches–though you may believe that on a personal basis–as there are many circumstances influencing people’s choice of religion and many degrees of ignorance, yet you turn around and say to Exalt in another post

A person cannot be a Catholic and believe what you said above because it is contrary to what the Church teaches. Those who believe what you wrote above, and who call themselves “progressive Catholics” are, in reality, Catholics who do not believe what the Church teaches.

Yet Exalt is at the least substantially in line with what Vatican II and the Church teach.

You claim to be in communion yet are making claims that are not in line with Church teaching, and accusing those who believe what the Church does teach to be wrong.

If you want to disagree with the Church, that’s your prerogative. But the fact that you interpret something one way doesn’t make it the truth if the Church says otherwise.

The Church has not found this particular issue of Church and state separation, which is not the same idea as Jefferson’s, to be in conflict to previous teachings. The documents in fact reference the previous documents and how it relates to them. I’m sorry you don’t like their view, but I’ll stick with the Church.

I’m done with this as it just keeps going in the same old circles.

Peace,

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Yes, you’re asking me and others to submit to your interpretation of what the Church teaches, which is not what the Church actually teaches.

I’m asking you to read the encyclicals.

And believe it or not, you’re not the only person who has ever read those documents. I have not read all of them but I have read enough of them, and all of the Vatican II documents, to understand what liberalism and modernism are.

So what is liberalism and modernims?

I also know that there are those who look for a “liberal” and a “modernist” behind every tree and who will apply the term to anyone who happens to agree with the teachings of Vatican II. The fact that the overwhelming majority of those at Vatican II agreed with the documents as promulgated apparently holds no weight against your decision that they are in fact nothing more than liberal perversions.

You have said several times that I reject Vatican II. Since you have made that claim, please show me what parts of Vatican II you think I reject.

The danger in trying to take minority positions that did not find support in the Council is that following such logic would then enable others to do the same with previous councils. One could take the very vocal minority position against infallibility from Vatican I based on your ideas, for instance. If we get to pick and choose between Councils and their teachings then the whole thing is up for grabs.

Again, you are assuming that I reject Vatican II. We know from this thread that you explicitly reject the syllabus of errors (that is, you believe some of those errors), but you have not presented anything in Vatican II that I reject. Please do so, or don’t claim that I reject Vatican II.

You say, in a post to to Exalt

Quote: Pax et Caritas: “I believe that those who have accepted a false religion on faith, are on the way to hell. While I acknowledge that many people are of other religions because of family or cultural reasons, it does not change the fact that they are following a religion that I believe was invented by the devil to lead souls away from the true religion, and thus to hell”.

This is not what the Church teaches–though you may believe that on a personal basis–as there are many circumstances influencing people’s choice of religion and many degrees of ignorance, yet…

We’ll stop here so I can provide you with Church teaching on teh subject. Remember, that Catholic faith does not change, and dogmas do not evolve from one meaning to another.

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).”

The next quote is an infallible dogma:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives… "

That infallible dogma is pretty clear, wouldn’t you say?

I’ll provide just one more quote…

continue…

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

continuation

Last magisterial quote to support my position:

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832: “Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life… You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation… Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.’ Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.’ Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use, but also that which… other Eastern Catholics use. We did not mention these selected testimonies because We thought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of Our instruction. Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and insulting suspicion about you. But We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.”

Now, how did my statement differ from those magisteiral quotes? Yet you rejected what I wrote by claiming that it is not what the Church teaches. But clearly it is what the Church teaches, as I just showed.

Now, I must ask, you do not interpret the Vatican II documents contrary to the quotes I provided, do you? The Church does not contradict itself and dogmas to not change. They are fixed and bind the conscience of Catholics from the moment they are defined. Therefore, if you interpret Vatican II contrary to the infallible dogma of Florence and the other magisterial quotes I provided, you should be concerned about your interpretation.

Also keep in mind what we always here: That “Vatican II has been misinterpreted”. If so many Bishops have misinterpreted the council, how are you so sure that you have not also misinterpreted it … especially if you interpret it contrary to the quotes I provided?

NCJohn:

you turn around and say to Exalt in another post

Quote: Pax et Caritas: “A person cannot be a Catholic and believe what you said above because it is contrary to what the Church teaches. Those who believe what you wrote above, and who call themselves “progressive Catholics” are, in reality, Catholics who do not believe what the Church teaches”

.

Yet Exalt is at the least substantially in line with what Vatican II and the Church teach.

Well, if you believe that than either one of two things have happened: Either the Church has completely changed its teachings, or you have misunderstood what the Vatican II documents say.

So, which do you think is more likely? That the Church has completely changed what it teaches and now teaches the exact contrary, or that you may be mistaken about what the Church teaches?

You claim to be in communion yet are making claims that are not in line with Church teaching, and accusing those who believe what the Church does teach to be wrong. … Yet Exalt is at the least substantially in line with what Vatican II and the Church teach.

Do you mean that Exalt, who is promoting what he has termed “progressing Catholicism”, is in agreement with the Church, or with your personal interpretation of Vatican II, which contradicts the infallible quote I provided?

And just for the record, I could provide dozens or more quotes that say the exact same thing. And these are not just quotes from ordinary Catholics, but from Popes, councils, saints and doctors of the Church, all of whom teach exactly what I was saying.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread has gone off topic–I will have to close it if it is hijacked. If you wish to discuss EENS, please start a new thread in the appropriate forum. Thank you all.

 

[BonnieBj]

I have not had time to read all the pages of this thread, but I’d like to add a historical note, if I may. I have been editing a book about what the Supreme Court has done to our Constitution to make it lose all its original intent and meaning. The concept of “separation of church and state” is not an idea that our founding fathers desired to promulgate. Far from it, the relevant passage intends only that there be no official state religion. The “wall of spearation” between church and state, as it is commonly known, came from an unfortunate misinterpretation of a passage in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. Anyone who wishes a citation for this may pm me.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

I don’t understand. You don’t need the pope telling you that the believe that state and the church should be separated. It’s logical. If the Church is correct then and it is an institution established by God Himself then how can you can ever argue for a secular state?

I would so love to move to that state. There would be no abortions allowed, no contraception being sold, no pornography, Catholicism would be the state religion etc.

A state in communion with the Truth?