Sep of Church and state?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 11 2005, 06:42 AM']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.
[right][snapback]609190[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The previous teaching of the Popes taken diachronically is an infallible act of the Ordinary Papal Magisterium, one cannot dissent from it at all. [u]Dignitatis Humanae[/u] is an act of the Authentic Magisterium of the bishops gathered in general council, as such it must be given a religious submission of intellect and will, but it is not [i]de fide[/i].

The declaration [u]Dignitatis Humanae[/u], like many of the decrees and declarations of the Second Vatican Council, falls under the third proposition of the [i]Professio Fidei[/i], not the second.

[Apotheoun]

For those interested in more infomation about this issue I recommend reading Fr. Brian Harrison's article [i]Vatican II and Religious Liberty: Contradiction or Continuity[/i], which was published in the journal [u]Social Justice Review[/u], and which can be found at the [u]Catholic Dossier[/u] internet site listed below:

[url="http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Dossier/00MarApr/continuity.html"]http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Do...continuity.html[/url]

[Matty_boy]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 10 2005, 11:17 PM']"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.
[right][snapback]609120[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The definition of a Nation is different than that of a State. A Nation is a large group of people who are living under the same governing body, while the State is the governing body and all it encompasses. The nation is the people and the state is the government. So by the verse in Matthew, Jesus calls to go out and evangelize to the people, not the governing body.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Matty_boy' date='Jun 11 2005, 09:45 AM']The definition of a Nation is different than that of a State.  A Nation is a large group of people who are living under the same governing body, while the State is the governing body and all it encompasses.  The nation is the people and the state is the government.  So by the verse in Matthew, Jesus calls to go out and evangelize to the people, not the governing body.
[right][snapback]609250[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I am aware of that, and if you read the article I gave a link to above, you will see that the difference is noted. Nevertheless, it is a duty of the State to maintain the common good, and so the State, within in due limits, has a duty to prevent the dissemination of error. The distinction between the "State" and the "nation" must not be pressed too far, because if one does that, he will fall into the heresy of indifferentism.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Pio Nono' date='Jun 11 2005, 06:43 AM']I'm just wondering what you think of Brownson's reading of the whole thing (cf. my post above).
[right][snapback]609167[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I disagree with it on several points first and formost te dogmatic authority of the Syllubus, it meets all the requirments of Infallability.

[Don John of Austria]

I agree with Apotheoun on vitually every point here. I was going to say say much of it, but he beat me to it. I will certianly read the artical.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
6/11 - St. Barnabas

[quote]I disagree with it on several points first and formost te dogmatic authority of the Syllubus, it meets all the requirments of Infallability.
[right][snapback]609265[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I don't mean to sound flippant, but would you mind presenting an argument as to why Brownson is wrong? I find your answer (which seems to be tantamount to a simple disagreement with his conclusion) to be unsatisfying.

[Don John of Austria]

The syllubus meets the conditions for infallability


1 It was presented by the Pope in his role as the supreme pastor of the Church, as the Pope, not as a Theologian or mere bishop.

2. The syllubus directly deals with matters of Faith and Morals, specificly that is all it deals with and is adreesed in such a way as to not be ambiguous.

3. It was addressed to the Church not to a church , and was intended to binding on the entire Church.

Those are the conditions for infallability, It meets them Ergo it is infallable.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
6/11 - St. Barnabas

Thanks for the answer - clears up a couple of things on my end.

Here's what I take Pius IX to be saying -

[quote]The church ought to be separated from the state, and the state from the church.[/quote]

I think he's condemning the statement that the Church MUST be separate from the state (hence, "ought to be"). I don't think he's condemning the statement, "The Church [i]can[/i] be separate from the state. Just an idea.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Pio Nono' date='Jun 11 2005, 03:00 PM']JMJ
6/11 - St. Barnabas

Thanks for the answer - clears up a couple of things on my end.

Here's what I take Pius IX to be saying -
I think he's condemning the statement that the Church MUST be separate from the state (hence, "ought to be").  I don't think he's condemning the statement, "The Church [i]can[/i] be separate from the state.  Just an idea.
[right][snapback]609333[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



I think he is condemning exactly what he saying he is condemning,
"The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church" ought to does not mean MUST, Ought to does not mean CAN--- Ought to means it is desirable or adviseable, Pius IX is specificly condemning the Idea that it is desirable or advisable or recomended to have the Church and State be seperate. That is after all what he says is in error.

I think the Fact that there is no Probition to Catholics holding office in the US is a very weak arguement, the fact is there is no Formal declaration that it is forbidden, I think there are many informal ways it has been condemned, you cannot defend our constitution and be a Faithful Catholic, our constitution guarantees rights which are in direct contradiction to the teachings of the Church... For example Abortion or lets say freedom of the Press which was specifically condemned by Pius IX( granted he was talking about in the Papal states but of course the Papal states where the embodiment of the Union of Church and State which I think is relevant here)--- boy NO body likes to talk about that one anymore.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 12 2005, 01:30 PM']I think he is condemning exactly what he saying he is condemning, 
"The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church" ought to does not mean MUST, Ought to does not mean CAN--- Ought to means it is desirable or adviseable, Pius IX is specificly condemning the Idea that it is desirable or advisable or recomended to have the Church and State be seperate. That is after all what he says is in error.

I think the Fact that there is no Probition to Catholics holding office in the US is a very weak arguement, the fact is there is no Formal declaration that it is forbidden, I think there are many informal ways it has been condemned, you cannot defend our constitution and be a Faithful Catholic, our constitution guarantees rights which are in direct contradiction to the teachings of the Church... For example Abortion or lets say  freedom of the Press which was specifically condemned by Pius IX( granted he was talking about in the Papal states but of course the Papal states where the embodiment of the Union of Church and State which I think is relevant here)--- boy NO body likes to talk about that one anymore.
[right][snapback]609751[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Constitution does [b]NOT[/b] guarantee a "right" to an abortion. Nobody claimed there was a "Constitutional right" to abortion until Roe v. Wade, almost 200 years after the Constitution's framing! Before that, most states had anti-abortion laws, which were recognized as NOT being in violation of the Constitution. Roe v. Wade was the result of liberal judicial activism, NOT the Constitution.

(Think what you like about the Constitution, but don't repeat liberal lies about it to justify your opposition.)

And if holding office or voting etc. was intrinsically contrary to Catholicism, I'd think that the Church at some point during the U.S.'s 230 years of existence would have made a clear formal statement against it. But since there is none, this is your private opinion on the matter, nothing more.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 12 2005, 05:13 PM']The Constitution does [b]NOT[/b] guarantee a "right" to an abortion.  Nobody claimed there was a "Constitutional right" to abortion until Roe v. Wade, almost 200 years after the Constitution's framing!  Before that, most states had anti-abortion laws, which were recognized as NOT being in violation of the Constitution.  Roe v. Wade was the result of liberal judicial activism, NOT the Constitution.

(Think what you like about the Constitution, but don't repeat liberal lies about it to justify your opposition.)

And if holding office or voting etc. was intrinsically contrary to Catholicism, I'd think that the Church at some point during the U.S.'s 230 years of existence would have made a clear formal statement against it.  But since there is none, this is your private opinion on the matter, nothing more.
[right][snapback]609885[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Blah Blah Blah the Constitution seperates the State from any control by the Church, ie from any control by God, Our Constitution is a document of Tyranny and nothing More. It most certianly does give the right to an abortion.. you seem to be suffering forom a very serious misunderstanding of the Constitution... it means exactly whatever the government says it means right now. It is because of it's vaunted flexability that it is so vile, in the South where the southern stated where oppressed by there own( I say that with a grain of Salt) state governments the states prevented further problems like this by writing huge documents restricting in detail the powers of the government. But the U.S. Constitution has no such restrictions even where the Founders tried to place them they failed miserably. It was 6 years old when the Feds started to reinterprete it to suit them--- The Whiskey rebelion was a direct result of what would have been thought unfair and unconstitutional in 1788.

I didn't say voting was forbidden certianly the Bishops vote at council and Cardnials vote on the Pope butthose votes acknowledge and are led by the Authority of God, The American Contsitution rejects that authority comes from God instead embracing the Heretical Notion that Authority comes from the People. A Notion which has been directly condemned. This isn't my opionin it is a Fact, Try reading the documents of the Founders. Try looking into our history a bit More, you realize that the Jacobins in France and The Founders here all looked to the Same Heretical documents for Inspiration. The Social Contract comes to Mind.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 12 2005, 05:44 PM']Blah Blah Blah the Constitution seperates the State from any control by the Church, ie from any control by God, Our Constitution is a document of Tyranny and nothing More. It most certianly does give the right to an abortion.. you seem to be suffering forom a very serious misunderstanding of the Constitution... it means exactly whatever the government says it means right now. It is because of it's vaunted flexability that it is  so vile, in the South where the southern stated where oppressed by there own( I say that with a grain of Salt) state governments the states prevented further problems like this by writing huge documents restricting in detail the powers of the government. But the U.S. Constitution  has no such restrictions even where the Founders tried to place them they failed miserably. It was 6 years old when the Feds started to reinterprete it to suit them--- The Whiskey rebelion was a direct result of what would have been thought unfair and unconstitutional in 1788.

I didn't say voting was forbidden certianly the Bishops vote at council and Cardnials vote on the Pope butthose votes acknowledge and are led by the Authority of God, The American Contsitution rejects that authority comes from God instead embracing the Heretical Notion that Authority comes from the People. A Notion which has been directly condemned.  This isn't my opionin it is a Fact, Try reading the documents of the Founders. Try looking into our history a bit More, you realize that the Jacobins in France and The Founders here all looked to the Same Heretical documents  for Inspiration. The Social Contract comes to Mind.
[right][snapback]609906[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
"By due process" comes to mind. Basically a way to do anything that is pleased.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='Jun 12 2005, 06:07 PM']"By due process" comes to mind. Basically a way to do anything that is pleased.
[right][snapback]609923[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yup

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
6/12 - Eleventh Sunday

[quote]I think he is condemning exactly what he saying he is condemning,
"The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church" ought to does not mean MUST, Ought to does not mean CAN--- Ought to means it is desirable or adviseable, Pius IX is specificly condemning the Idea that it is desirable or advisable or recomended to have the Church and State be seperate. That is after all what he says is in error.[/quote]

If the Latin word is [i]debere[/i], then "ought to" carries with it the caliber of command. So, "We ought to do good and avoid evil" is the same as "Do good and avoid evil" if that is the verb used. If he uses another word for "ought" to imply "advisable", I'd like to see it.