Under God? Really?

[mark4IHM]

Don John,

I agree that the best condition is being ruled by Catholic people in a Catholic state. But thats not the same as a theocracy.

A theocracy would be the Church being the government as well as the Church. I think the Jews came close to doing that; it had its advantages and disadvantages.

Even the Holy Roman Empire was not a theocracy, although it was about as Catholic as you can get. The Church herself recognized that there were certain secular activities that were best regulated by a national or local government, and limited her scope accordingly..

So the Christian rulers deferred to the Church in matters of religion, and sometimes in politics too, but not as readily; there was often tension between Popes and Christian rulers. And of course, some Catholic rulers were bad rulers, or greedy, etc... But the laws and culture were Catholic, and the balance struck by Church and state in Christendom, despite its flaws, remains the most salvific, and highest form of government in terms of promoting the common weal, that human beings have enjoyed.

[jasJis]

Mark,

No problema aqui.

I'm more often offensive then offended. It was a little jab.

Everyone has the wrong idea of a Catholic Government. It would only work well with the full cooperation of the Citizens and the Governors. The Church Institution hasn't been run perfectly, ever, and never will. We are human, and suffer the effects of sins until we are perfected in Christ. We won't be perfect until Christ comes again and then we will have perfect Catholic Government on Earth and Heaven.

Infallibility is confidence in God's perfect correction and protection in the Church in according to the time frame of His Will. It may be struck down, but never destroyed. Damaged, but never maimed. Perfect Faith will always be found in the Catholic Church.

We have so much Faith and Grace now, but do so little with it. Having a Catholic Government would be additional Grace, but if we were all Mother Theresa, or Padre Pio's, we'd still have human problems.

[mark4IHM]

jasJis,

Well said.

[God Conquers]

Whatever, I said through Mary. Of course all grace is from Christ Jesus.... harsh dude.

[jasJis]

jasJis,

Well said.

Coming from you, I will take that as a great compliment.

[Chrysologus]

Actually, you DIDN'T say "through," which was the problem.

[IcePrincessKRS]

ummm, wierd. I don't think that's right. The state could never administer grace, only Mary can do that, through Christ and with the Church. States can't give grace.

Actually, Chrys, he DID say "through," although his statement wasn't 100% accurate as Winchester pointed out a couple posts after this one.

[Chrysologus]

And where does he say "through"? He said that only Mary could give grace through Christ and the Church. Now that would be right if instead of Mary he said God. See, let's not elevate Mary to God like people say that we do.

[IcePrincessKRS]

And where does he say "through"? He said that only Mary could give grace through Christ and the Church. Now that would be right if instead of Mary he said God. See, let's not elevate Mary to God like people say that we do.

I believe the point of what GC said was that we get grace directly from God, but also from God through Mary. I don't think the point was to elevete Mary to a god-position, but to show her rightful position. After all, Jesus IS God. I don't want to argue, I was just trying to point out that he did say "through." He never said Mary administers grace of her own accord. I think I see what you're saying, though, the way he stated it could be taken lil' bit backwards, it should more properly have been Christ gives grace through Mary.

[Chrysologus]

Yes, see, I was trying to prevent anyone from reading his post and saying "OK, here is definite proof that Catholics worship Mary as God, regardless of what they say about 'hyperdulia' and all that rubbish." Because, if you read what was written literally, the most obvious conclusion is that God has been replaced by Mary. I just don't want to ever give anyone the impression that I, or other Catholics, place Mary above God, because enough people already believe that fallacy without me having to make it worse with poorly chosen or explained words.

[jasJis]

From an e-mail I got today...

History Forgotten

Did you know that 52 of the 55 signers of the Declaration of Independence were orthodox, deeply committed Christians?  The other three all believed in the Bible as the divine truth, the God of scripture, and His personal

intervention.

It is the same Congress that formed the American Bible Society.  Immediately after creating the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress voted to purchase and import 20,000 copies of scripture for the people of this nation.

Patrick Henry, who is called the firebrand of the American Revolution, is still remembered for his words, '"Give me liberty or give me death."'  But in current textbooks the context of these words is deleted.  Here is what he actually said: '"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us.  But we shall not fight our battle alone.  There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations.  The battle sir, is not to the strong alone.  Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God.  I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."'

These sentences have been erased from our textbooks.  Was Patrick Henry a Christian?  The following year, 1776, he wrote this '"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here."'

Consider these words that Thomas Jefferson wrote on the front of his well-worn Bible: '"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.  I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator "'  He was also the chairman of the American Bible Society, which he considered his highest and most important role.

On July 4, 1821, President Adams said, '"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."'

Calvin Coolidge, our 30th President of the United States reaffirmed this truth when he wrote,  '"The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country."'

In 1782, the United States Congress voted this resolution: '"The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools."'

Doesn't quite sound like all Diests, does it?

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Myabe not, but it depends on the sources used for that email...

[mark4IHM]

JasJis,

I agree, not all the founding Fathers were Deists. Likewise, I think the e-mail you quoted describing them all as "orthodox, deeply committed Christians"exaggerates things in a different direction.

History can be putty in the hands of its interpreters, yours truly included. I remember reading a Catholic account of George Washington's deathbed conversion to Catholicism. How wonderful if it were true, but I've never seen anything substantial to verify it. Love of country is encoded in our hearts, and as we all know, our hearts can will that certain things be true regardless of facts.

[Good Friday]

May the love, joy, and unity of Christ and his Church be with all of you.

I was revisiting some of my posts, mostly to kick myself in the behind, and I came across this one. In the process of figuring out how I felt about it, I decided that I still agree with what I said -- that the majority of the founding fathers were not Christians, but Deists and Freemasons. However, my reason for saying it has changed.

I say it now because I believe it's objectively true. When I posted this, my purpose was slightly less innocent. Once I established that Christianity had no hold on the United States, I wanted to argue once and for all that there was no reason religious laws should be observed in this country. I still don't think religious laws per se should be observed in this country, but I digress, that's not the point.

I still think my original point, that most of the founding fathers were not Christians, is a valid one. To me, it seems like a matter of history. But I don't think it matters much, I don't think it means that this country can never be Christian -- though I'll admit that I think it would be very difficult because of the severance of Church and State (as opposed to the separation of them) that the courts in this country has made law. But I do think this country can be Christian, regardless of its foundations. Look at the foundations of Rome -- built upon paganism. But look at what Rome is today. Jesus can make all things holy through the Church, including the U.S., regardless of its foundation.

That said, I think things would be much easier if the First Amendment were changed and the separation of Church and State were removed, replacing it with a clause about religious tolerance (which is different than the separation of Church and State).

[jasJis]

Hi Good Friday,

I had to check the calendar. Yup! It's the third Tuesday of the month. I guess you're back again. Do you consider yourself Catholic this week? But I digress...

There are many people who consider the US's First Amendment as a law establishing religious tolerance as a legal right. It also established the legal right to be free of religion. Non-religious people think the second part is great, the religious are horrified at the consequences.

As only a second-generation American, and having siblings with in-laws in lot's of other countries, religious freedom in the US seems to be appreciated more by those who desire it then those here who can live it.