Combining Church & State

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jul 24 2004, 03:10 PM']Seperation of Church and State is a heretical condition of Our Country, The Church has already deifned it as a heresy, If you say that the Church should be seperate from the Church and the Church from the State then you are in error and guilty of a heresy as difined by Blessed Pius IX in the Syllubus of Errors. The Church Has every right to tell people how to Vote.[/quote]
Good point. From the [i]Syllabus of Errors[/i] of Pope Bl. Pius IX:
[quote][b]The Syllabus of Errors:[/b]
55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.[/quote]
Note: The above is defining separation of Church and State as an error.

Edited July 27, 2004 by thedude

[Quietfire]

showing that it has been in writing for at least 150 years and maybe more.

Good!!

[Don John of Austria]

[quote] am talking about the treatments descibed by a Fransician Missionary. That is most of what I was refering to. He wrote in protest of what the Spanish were doing in the name of God.[/quote]


Oh you are refering to Bartolome de La Casas, Well First He had a habit of exageration, but much more importantly he is very often misquoted in books, and sited as a source for things he never said, I would also remind you before you start throwing him around a a great source, He suggested, and worked to bring about the practice of the Spanish useing Black slaves from Africa instead of free Indians to do the labor. Mind you that the Indians Were Placed under the Kings Protection almost immediatly after the Church determained that they where in Fact Human( which sounds silly now but was a serious question atthe time.) and NO Indians where legally made slaves or kept in slavery after that time, so here was where the Church and state being one Protected not harmed a people Conquered by the State.

[littleflower+JMJ]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 27 2004, 12:14 PM'] Good point.  From the [i]Syllabus of Errors[/i] of Pope Bl. Pius IX:

Note: The above is defining separation of Church and State as an error. [/quote]

i see now.....thanks thedude

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

oops...

Edited July 27, 2004 by thedude

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[b]Upon further thought, the Syllubus of Errors doesn't need to be invoked in this thread at all:[/b]

Separation of Church and State in America is false; the First Amendment doesn't separate Church and State. No. 55 of the [i]Syllabus of Errors[/i] doesn't make the United States heretical in its position because America doesn't actually have separation of Church and State.
[quote][b]The First Amendment:[/b]
[u]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[/u]; 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.[/quote]
All the First Amendment says is that the State will not infringe upon the rights of the Church. "[E]stablishment of religion" isn't to be read as an established state Church (a common misinterpretation). An "establishment of religion" is [i]a Church[/i].

Edited July 27, 2004 by thedude

[Don John of Austria]

The Founding Fathers where not the arbitors of morality. They where Traitor to their king, and most where Traitors to God as well ( they where Deist and rejected the divinity of Christ as well as the God of the Old Testement.)

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

All of them? I knew Thomas Jefferson was a Deist but I hadn't known of any others. Which ones specifically?

[Don John of Austria]

all the famous ones except George Washington who was a diest but converted to Christianity, Ben Franklin was a deist but was also an occultist and assosiated with Satanist and the Like.

Edited July 27, 2004 by Don John of Austria

[catholicguy]

Don John of Austria,

I do not think Washington ever actually converted. People make up those kinds of "death bed conversion" stories all the time, even with Luther himself! I have never read anything credible concerning his supposed "conversion." Washington was a 33rd degree freemason (highest possible). I highly doubt with the agenda the masons have that he would have converted, especially since he was ranked so high. Again, I have never read anything credible, but if you have something that is, I would be happy to see it. God bless.

[catholicguy]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 27 2004, 04:08 PM'] [b]Upon further thought, the Syllubus of Errors doesn't need to be invoked in this thread at all:[/b]

Separation of Church and State in America is false; the First Amendment doesn't separate Church and State. No. 55 of the [i]Syllabus of Errors[/i] doesn't make the United States heretical in its position because America doesn't actually have separation of Church and State.

All the First Amendment says is that the State will not infringe upon the rights of the Church. "[E]stablishment of religion" isn't to be read as an established state Church (a common misinterpretation). An "establishment of religion" is [i]a Church[/i]. [/quote]
OK, so basically you are saying it could be re-written, thus:

"Congress shall make no law respecting a Church, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." OK. If that is the case, that still IS separation of Church and state. It states that Congress will make no law RESPECTING a Church. That clearly would entail not having an official Church of the State. If what you are saying is true, they would have had an official religion from the beginning; however, this is not the case, for being deists, they did not believe in religion at all. God bless.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

It isn't the word "respecting" as we understand it today. Read "respecting" as "in regards to". It clearly says that Government will not interfere with the Church's business, but does not say the Church couldn't interfere politically on government issues. The Church is first banana, and isn't barred from influencing policy.

Edited July 28, 2004 by thedude

[Don John of Austria]

I know the "one way wall" arguement your making, and I think there is some validity to it however there it ( while better than what we have now, is still not in keeping with Catholic teaching.

Edited July 28, 2004 by Don John of Austria

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Just a thought I guess. Archbishop Spalding of Baltimore came to the same conclusion as I about Church and State in America but he never got a response from Rome. I guess it doesn't matter, Church and State is heretical whether or not the US abides by it.

[catholicguy]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 28 2004, 09:00 AM'] Just a thought I guess. Archbishop Spalding of Baltimore came to the same conclusion as I about Church and State in America but he never got a response from Rome. I guess it doesn't matter, Church and State is heretical whether or not the US abides by it. [/quote]
It's important to remember that a lot of the first Bishops in the US were Americanists. The Holy See wrote a letter to Cardinal Gibbons to set them straight, as many were partakers in the American heresy. In fact, I read that the first Bishop of the US was a freemason (he was elected by the Priests in the US).