Sep of Church and state?

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Jun 10 2005, 06:25 PM']Seperation of Church and State is not even in the constitution, it was a totally seperate document (more like a letter). it does not mean what the liberal demoncrats are making it out to mean either. They are masters of misenterpretation. I dont remember fully but i beleive it was a letter by thomas jefferson to the dunkard baptists? who wanted their church to be the state religion.  It wasnt  to outlaw Christianity and religiion from the public square. (Thats more like old pagan rome).
[right][snapback]609020[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That was also my first thought reading this
“separation of church and state” is actually found in NO PART OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

What you will find in the U.S. Constitution is a guarantee of “freedom of religion”
Remember that America was settled by people fleeing (among other things) a state sanctioned Christian denomination – a government church.

The liberal ideal is to twist “freedom of religion” into a state sanctioned, legally bound freedom FROM religion.

[Don John of Austria]

As thy will be done has already said: that Church and State should be seperate is a bdefined Heresy. end of discussion.

[Apotheoun]

"And Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.'" [Matthew 28:18-20]

As is clear from our Lord's words, the acceptance of the truth is not simply a matter of private personal adherence, and so it is necessary for all peoples and nations to recognize and accept the Catholic faith.

[Pio Nono]

[quote]As thy will be done has already said: that Church and State should be seperate is a bdefined Heresy. end of discussion.[/quote]

I'm just wondering what you think of Brownson's reading of the whole thing (cf. my post above).

[Guest Eremite]

This issue is very detailed, so it's hard to give a "yes or no" answer. The Church and State do have a certain necessary autonomy, as the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council makes clear:

[quote]"The Church and the political community in their own fields are autonomous and independent from each other. Yet both, under different titles, are devoted to the personal and social vocation of the same men."

--"Gaudium et Spes", #26[/quote]

At the same time, the Council upheld "traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men [b]and societies[/b] toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ." ("Dignitatis Humanae", #1)

Predemoninantly Catholic nations have a [i]moral duty[/i] to establish, to the best of their abilities, a Catholic state. This is because the State, as a social entity of human beings, owes obedience and worship to the one true God, and recognition of "the one Church of Christ".

At the same time, a Catholic state [i]does not[/i] mean the rights of other people to freely exercise their own religions are suppressed, within due limits:

[quote]"If, in view of peculiar circumstances obtaining among peoples, special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional order of society, it is at the same time imperative that the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice."

--DH, #6[/quote]

On this topic, the Church must teach with general principles, as the particular form this social doctrine takes depends upon the condition of society (eg, what constitutes "due limits" for a particular nation).

[quote]the acceptance of the truth is not simply a matter of private personal adherence, and so it is necessary for all peoples and nations to recognize and accept the Catholic faith.[/quote]

Yes, there is a moral duty to accept the truth as one comes to know it. However, even in a Catholic state, religious freedom must be respected:

[quote]"Man's response to God by faith must be free. ...therefore nobody is to be forced to embrace the faith against his will. The act of faith is of its very nature a free act."

--CCC, #160[/quote]

[Apotheoun]

I don't have a problem with what you've said, although I'm sure that our views on [u]Dignitatis Humanae[/u] differ. Sadly the ambiguous language used in [u]Dignitatis Humanae[/u] has caused problems over the past 40 years, but that document, read in the light of the Church's tradition, is compatible with the perennial teaching of the Magisterium. That being said, I would point out that too great an emphasis upon one conciliar declaration, without placing it in its proper context within the overall tradition of the Church, can cause problems.

Certainly no one is to be coerced into accepting the Catholic faith, and in fact, coercion is by definition contrary to the act of faith itself, which must be freely made under the impulse of divine grace. Moreover, the common good may require that the State permit the practice of other religions, but this must not lead to a form of indifferentism, either by individuals or by governments, because the duty to seek out the truth, and to embrace it once found, remains inviolate.

[Guest Eremite]

Apotheoun,

I agree. I try not to rely on Vatican II documents too much; not for any negative reason, but because too many people view it as the end-game, when it's just one link in a chain. But in this instance, Dignitatis Humanae is very important, because it explicitly developed the doctrine of the Church, unlike most Vatican II documents, which were aimed at renewal.

[Apotheoun]

There is a tendency today to overemphasize the importance of this conciliar declaration, and that must be avoided as you've indicated.

The teaching of the Popes prior to the Second Vatican Council clearly has greater Magisterial weight, and those documents must form the foundation of the teaching on this subject. In other words, [u]Dignitatis Humanae[/u] must be read in the light of those Pontifical documents and not the other way around.

Now, that does not mean that [u]Dignitatis Humanae[/u] should be ignored, but its teaching must be conformed to the previous teaching, for to do anything else would cause a rupture in the Church's tradition. It is a lamentable fact that too many people read this document in an "American" way, but since an American priest, Fr. John Courtney Murray, was involved in its formulation, perhaps that is a natural tendency. Nevertheless, that perspective must be resisted, and the novel phrasing and terminology within the document must be conformed to the teaching of the Papal Magisterium prior to the council.

[Guest Eremite]

The only thing I would say is that the present is not just viewed through the past. The past is also viewed through the present. We see this principles in exegesis, where the New Testament can only be understood through the lens of the Old Testatment, its foundation; but at the same time, the Old Testament must be viewed through the lens of the New Testament, to properly understand what it did, and did not, say.

The Magisterium today rests on the shoulders of giants. But she has her own task to advance, and we must view the past through the eyes of today as well. This is a necessary process of development. This doesn't necessarily mean the past was in error (although that is certainly possible in some cases), but that it was incomplete (not to mention operating in different circumstances, which must be considered).

Also, I would take issue with the idea that the pre-conciliar Popes have more weight than an Ecumenical Council. Vatican II exercised the Supreme Ordinary magisterium. The same can't be said of individual statements from pre-conciliar Pontiffs.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 11 2005, 06:24 AM']The only thing I would say is that the present is not just viewed through the past. The past is also viewed through the present. We see this principles in exegesis, where the New Testament can only be understood through the lens of the Old Testatment, its foundation; but at the same time, the Old Testament must be viewed through the lens of the New Testament, to properly understand what it did, and did not, say.

The Magisterium today rests on the shoulders of giants. But she has her own task to advance, and we must view the past through the eyes of today as well. This is a necessary process of development. This doesn't necessariy mean the past was in error (although that is certainly possible in some cases), but that it was incomplete (not to mention operating in different circumstances, which must be considered).
[right][snapback]609181[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
What is important about present day teaching is that it be conform to the previous Magisterium, because if it contradicts it, such an act would not be a development of doctrine, but would involve its corruption. Thus, [u]Dignitatis Humanae[/u], which teaches things in a way that is hard to conform to the previous teaching, must be in some way conformed to that teaching, or a new and novel innovation has occurred and the doctrine of the faith will have been corrupted. That cannot be, so [u]Dignitatis Humanae[/u] must be read in a way that conforms it to the perennial teaching. I recommend reading Fr. Harrison's article on [u]Dignitatis Humanae[/u], because he does a fine job (although not a perfect one) showing that the teaching contained in the concilar declaration can be conformed to the Pontifical Magisterium.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 11 2005, 06:24 AM']Also, I would take issue with the idea that the pre-conciliar Popes have more weight than an Ecumenical Council. Vatican II exercised the Supreme Ordinary magisterium. The same can't be said of individual statements from pre-conciliar Pontiffs.
[right][snapback]609181[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You may take issue with it, but the Popes, even in their Ordinary Magisterium are also a Universal Magisterium. Thus, the teaching of a series of Popes in succession has greater weight than the merely Authentic Magisterium of the bishops even when assembled in council.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]What is important about present day teaching is that it be conform to the previous Magisterium, because if it contradicts it, such an act would not be a development of doctrine,[/quote]

First, let me say that I certainly don't think DH contradicts the Church's pre-conciliar doctrine; although it certainly does clarify and develop it.

That said, in theory, there is no Catholic objection to the possibility that the pre-conciliar ordinary Magisterium was wrong in one point or another (the same can be said about the Magisterium today, although we owe religious submission of mind and will regardless).

[quote]It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed.

("Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian", #24)[/quote]

I don't want to get the thread off topic, though, so I'll say no more.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 11 2005, 06:35 AM']First, let me say that I certainly don't think DH contradicts the Church's pre-conciliar doctrine; although it certainly does clarify and develop it.
[right][snapback]609186[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[u]Dignitatis Humanae[/u] is merely an authentic act of the Magisterium, it must be obeyed, but it is not infallible. Thus, I think you are giving it far too much weight.

[Guest Eremite]

DH has the weight of the Supreme Ordinary magisterium. There is no higher weight, except actual definitions of the Extraordinary magisterium, which is rarely invoked.

Note what the CDF commentary on the Professio Fidei says:

[quote]The second proposition of the Professio fidei states: "I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals." The object taught by this formula includes all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area,13 which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed.

Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks 'ex cathedra' or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or they can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a "sententia definitive tenenda".14 Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Church's Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters.15 Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine16 and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.[/quote]

The ordinary Magisterium can teach infallibly. This is true of Vatican II, which is the supreme measure of the ordinary Magisterium.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 11 2005, 06:35 AM']That said, in theory, there is no Catholic objection to the possibility that the pre-conciliar ordinary Magisterium was wrong in one point or another (the same can be said about the Magisterium today, although we owe religious submission of mind and will regardless).
I don't want to get the thread off topic, though, so I'll say no more.
[right][snapback]609186[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Of course, one must look at the relative weight of every act of the Magisterium, and that can be determined by the nature of the document, the degree of authority invoked, and by the repetition of the teaching over time.

BTW, I don't think you've gotten the thread off topic at all.