Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Roman Catholicism and Freedom

annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 10:54:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The subject of the relationship of Roman Catholicism to the common freedoms, the four freedoms, cherished by the British and Americans has come up a few times. It seems to me that many do not realize that the very heart and soul of the Catholic mindset is opposed to these freedoms. Others think, "Now it is different. Now it is changing." To those I would remind that the Roman Catholic Church is, historically, very patient and chameleon-like: she lends her support to tyrannies, nazis, democracies, communists if the political climate suits it. She also behaves very differently when in the minority. To get a good dose of it, one must examine a country that is wholly controlled by Catholics, such as Spain.

At any rate, the following has never been renounced (to my knowledge). On Dec 8, 1864, Pius IX issued his famous Syllabus of Errors as an adjunct (and actually a part of) the encyclical Quanta Cura. As to whether the papa was speaking infallibly or not, I do not quibble.

Observe the following:

(It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church." (Error #55)

Pius IX abhorred the developing system in America, particularly as it related to public education - and I suppose he noticed that the American First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Pius thought the such a statement was a pernicious evil. I ask, "Do American Roman Catholics believe in the separation of church and state as defined by our constitution?"

(It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true." (Error #15)

How's that? The pope of Rome is basically saying that freedom of religion, as a sociopolitical concept, is a grave error. It does very little good to speak of Catholic patriots and wave the flag with a statement like that in the background.

(It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "in the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship." (Error #77)

What's that saying? Well, it seems that papa is wanting to unite the church and state (for such has always characterized Catholicism), and - above that - to exclude every other form of religion. If that's not what it means, perchance someone will explain it.

(It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship." (Error #78)

Does one recognize a pattern? The pope in his encyclical is condemning the public services of every form of religion other than Roman Catholicism, is he not? If he had his way, everyone other than Catholics would worship "underground". Catholicism, in his view, should be embraced by and wedded to the state, and the state in turn should naturally ban the public practice of other religions.

*******

Have these statements ever been set aside? Has the Roman Catholic Church ever said, "We do not teach that now"? Moreover, are not the papal statements above in direct opposition to the United States Constitution?

The first sentence of the oath of office of a Catholic bishop reads as follows:

"I, _____, elect of the church of _____, from henceforth will be faithful and obedient to St. Peter the Apostle and to the holy Roman Church, and to our Lord, the Lord _____, Pope _____, and to his successors canonically entering ... "

In the middle, the oath reads, "

"Heretics, schismatics, and rebels, to our said Lord, or his foresaid successors, I will to my power persecute and oppose."

How can a citizen of the United States or Britain swear loyalty to the Constitution, Queen, etc. and at the same time swear allegiance to a foreign sovereign who says you are cursed if you adhere to the certain principles of the Constitution?

That is part of the reason I have said that Roman Catholicism is a national nuisance. That's not all of it, but it's part. They'd love to tax the incomes of atheists, then educate their children in state-supported parochial schools. When expedient, they have actually banned the public expression of any religion other than Catholicism. Spain comes to mind.

I also remark that the Bible does not teach any of that. Not an ounce of it. In fact, the Bible is ultimately opposed to such nonsense. The government is a divine institution as are the home and the church. The three are separate and distinct. Education of a child is the responsibility of the parent fist and the government second - and is not the purview of the church at all.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 11:35:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
By the way, the 48th error listed is:

(It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church."

I guess that answers that. Thus the bishop of Rome is telling American Catholics, "You may NOT approve of the American system of public education."

No wonder the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

"Hence, in general, parents may not with a safe conscience send their children to non-Catholic schools, whether these be sectarian or secularist .... the attendance at non-Catholic schools by Catholic children is something which, for weighty motives and with due safeguards, can be tolerated, not approved."

It is simply a matter of fact that the Roman Catholic Church opposes the public school system as it exists in the United States. One of their old catechisms stated that the first duty of a Catholic parent with a child in the public school system is to remove him from it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 10:31:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 10:54:39 AM, annanicole wrote:
The subject of the relationship of Roman Catholicism to the common freedoms, the four freedoms, cherished by the British and Americans has come up a few times. It seems to me that many do not realize that the very heart and soul of the Catholic mindset is opposed to these freedoms. Others think, "Now it is different. Now it is changing." To those I would remind that the Roman Catholic Church is, historically, very patient and chameleon-like: she lends her support to tyrannies, nazis, democracies, communists if the political climate suits it. She also behaves very differently when in the minority. To get a good dose of it, one must examine a country that is wholly controlled by Catholics, such as Spain.

At any rate, the following has never been renounced (to my knowledge). On Dec 8, 1864, Pius IX issued his famous Syllabus of Errors as an adjunct (and actually a part of) the encyclical Quanta Cura. As to whether the papa was speaking infallibly or not, I do not quibble.

Observe the following:

(It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church." (Error #55)

Pius IX abhorred the developing system in America, particularly as it related to public education - and I suppose he noticed that the American First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Pius thought the such a statement was a pernicious evil. I ask, "Do American Roman Catholics believe in the separation of church and state as defined by our constitution?"

(It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true." (Error #15)

How's that? The pope of Rome is basically saying that freedom of religion, as a sociopolitical concept, is a grave error. It does very little good to speak of Catholic patriots and wave the flag with a statement like that in the background.

(It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "in the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship." (Error #77)

What's that saying? Well, it seems that papa is wanting to unite the church and state (for such has always characterized Catholicism), and - above that - to exclude every other form of religion. If that's not what it means, perchance someone will explain it.

(It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship." (Error #78)

Does one recognize a pattern? The pope in his encyclical is condemning the public services of every form of religion other than Roman Catholicism, is he not? If he had his way, everyone other than Catholics would worship "underground". Catholicism, in his view, should be embraced by and wedded to the state, and the state in turn should naturally ban the public practice of other religions.

*******

Have these statements ever been set aside? Has the Roman Catholic Church ever said, "We do not teach that now"? Moreover, are not the papal statements above in direct opposition to the United States Constitution?

The first sentence of the oath of office of a Catholic bishop reads as follows:

"I, _____, elect of the church of _____, from henceforth will be faithful and obedient to St. Peter the Apostle and to the holy Roman Church, and to our Lord, the Lord _____, Pope _____, and to his successors canonically entering ... "

In the middle, the oath reads, "

"Heretics, schismatics, and rebels, to our said Lord, or his foresaid successors, I will to my power persecute and oppose."

How can a citizen of the United States or Britain swear loyalty to the Constitution, Queen, etc. and at the same time swear allegiance to a foreign sovereign who says you are cursed if you adhere to the certain principles of the Constitution?

That is part of the reason I have said that Roman Catholicism is a national nuisance. That's not all of it, but it's part. They'd love to tax the incomes of atheists, then educate their children in state-supported parochial schools. When expedient, they have actually banned the public expression of any religion other than Catholicism. Spain comes to mind.

I also remark that the Bible does not teach any of that. Not an ounce of it. In fact, the Bible is ultimately opposed to such nonsense. The government is a divine institution as are the home and the church. The three are separate and distinct. Education of a child is the responsibility of the parent fist and the government second - and is not the purview of the church at all.

You're constantly talking about the visible flesh and this world instead of invisible heavenly things that will free man from this visible world. All religious people speak from the flesh about the flesh in this world. We saints know that ALL flesh must perish in this world before we go on to eternal life in the next age. We know the past so we can talk about how God formed the illusions of Christianity and other false religions to teach men how to build things so that He could use these things as analogies to teach us about His invisible creation. We saints can talk about the future age and how we'll live in Paradise but you can't because you don't have the knowledge about the future.

In fact, none of God's people have the knowledge to know the past, present and future so they have to read flawed history books to read other people's lies about what happened in the past. Only God's servant ( Christ ) in the minds of us saints have the knowledge to know what really happened in the past. We know that antichrists ( disobedient people of God's ) stole the written and spoken words by us saints to start Christianity with. Christianity has never produced a true saint of the Lord's that only our Creator can do because He is the one who planned and created ALL us prophets, saints and men ( created male and female ).
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 10:47:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Tyranny........
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
srehtiw
Posts: 491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2014 4:14:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 10:54:39 AM, annanicole wrote:
The subject of the relationship of Roman Catholicism to the common freedoms, the four freedoms, cherished by the British and Americans has come up a few times. It seems to me that many do not realize that the very heart and soul of the Catholic mindset is opposed to these freedoms. Others think, "Now it is different. Now it is changing." To those I would remind that the Roman Catholic Church is, historically, very patient and chameleon-like: she lends her support to tyrannies, nazis, democracies, communists if the political climate suits it. She also behaves very differently when in the minority. To get a good dose of it, one must examine a country that is wholly controlled by Catholics, such as Spain.

At any rate, the following has never been renounced (to my knowledge). On Dec 8, 1864, Pius IX issued his famous Syllabus of Errors as an adjunct (and actually a part of) the encyclical Quanta Cura. As to whether the papa was speaking infallibly or not, I do not quibble.

Observe the following:

(It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church." (Error #55)

Pius IX abhorred the developing system in America, particularly as it related to public education - and I suppose he noticed that the American First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Pius thought the such a statement was a pernicious evil. I ask, "Do American Roman Catholics believe in the separation of church and state as defined by our constitution?"

(It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true." (Error #15)

How's that? The pope of Rome is basically saying that freedom of religion, as a sociopolitical concept, is a grave error. It does very little good to speak of Catholic patriots and wave the flag with a statement like that in the background.

(It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "in the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship." (Error #77)

What's that saying? Well, it seems that papa is wanting to unite the church and state (for such has always characterized Catholicism), and - above that - to exclude every other form of religion. If that's not what it means, perchance someone will explain it.

(It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship." (Error #78)

Does one recognize a pattern? The pope in his encyclical is condemning the public services of every form of religion other than Roman Catholicism, is he not? If he had his way, everyone other than Catholics would worship "underground". Catholicism, in his view, should be embraced by and wedded to the state, and the state in turn should naturally ban the public practice of other religions.

*******

Have these statements ever been set aside? Has the Roman Catholic Church ever said, "We do not teach that now"? Moreover, are not the papal statements above in direct opposition to the United States Constitution?

The first sentence of the oath of office of a Catholic bishop reads as follows:

"I, _____, elect of the church of _____, from henceforth will be faithful and obedient to St. Peter the Apostle and to the holy Roman Church, and to our Lord, the Lord _____, Pope _____, and to his successors canonically entering ... "

In the middle, the oath reads, "

"Heretics, schismatics, and rebels, to our said Lord, or his foresaid successors, I will to my power persecute and oppose."

How can a citizen of the United States or Britain swear loyalty to the Constitution, Queen, etc. and at the same time swear allegiance to a foreign sovereign who says you are cursed if you adhere to the certain principles of the Constitution?

That is part of the reason I have said that Roman Catholicism is a national nuisance. That's not all of it, but it's part. They'd love to tax the incomes of atheists, then educate their children in state-supported parochial schools. When expedient, they have actually banned the public expression of any religion other than Catholicism. Spain comes to mind.

I also remark that the Bible does not teach any of that. Not an ounce of it. In fact, the Bible is ultimately opposed to such nonsense. The government is a divine institution as are the home and the church. The three are separate and distinct. Education of a child is the responsibility of the parent fist and the government second - and is not the purview of the church at all.

This comes from someone who lived 140 years ago. Stuff has changed since then.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2014 6:31:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/19/2014 4:14:47 PM, srehtiw wrote:
At 1/18/2014 10:54:39 AM, annanicole wrote:


At any rate, the following has never been renounced (to my knowledge). On Dec 8, 1864, Pius IX issued his famous Syllabus of Errors as an adjunct (and actually a part of) the encyclical Quanta Cura. As to whether the papa was speaking infallibly or not, I do not quibble.

Observe the following:

(It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church." (Error #55)

Pius IX abhorred the developing system in America, particularly as it related to public education - and I suppose he noticed that the American First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Pius thought the such a statement was a pernicious evil. I ask, "Do American Roman Catholics believe in the separation of church and state as defined by our constitution?"

(It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true." (Error #15)

How's that? The pope of Rome is basically saying that freedom of religion, as a sociopolitical concept, is a grave error. It does very little good to speak of Catholic patriots and wave the flag with a statement like that in the background.

(It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "in the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship." (Error #77)

What's that saying? Well, it seems that papa is wanting to unite the church and state (for such has always characterized Catholicism), and - above that - to exclude every other form of religion. If that's not what it means, perchance someone will explain it.

(It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship." (Error #78)

Does one recognize a pattern? The pope in his encyclical is condemning the public services of every form of religion other than Roman Catholicism, is he not? If he had his way, everyone other than Catholics would worship "underground". Catholicism, in his view, should be embraced by and wedded to the state, and the state in turn should naturally ban the public practice of other religions.

*******

Have these statements ever been set aside? Has the Roman Catholic Church ever said, "We do not teach that now"? Moreover, are not the papal statements above in direct opposition to the United States Constitution?

The first sentence of the oath of office of a Catholic bishop reads as follows:

"I, _____, elect of the church of _____, from henceforth will be faithful and obedient to St. Peter the Apostle and to the holy Roman Church, and to our Lord, the Lord _____, Pope _____, and to his successors canonically entering ... "

In the middle, the oath reads, "

"Heretics, schismatics, and rebels, to our said Lord, or his foresaid successors, I will to my power persecute and oppose."

How can a citizen of the United States or Britain swear loyalty to the Constitution, Queen, etc. and at the same time swear allegiance to a foreign sovereign who says you are cursed if you adhere to the certain principles of the Constitution?

That is part of the reason I have said that Roman Catholicism is a national nuisance. That's not all of it, but it's part. They'd love to tax the incomes of atheists, then educate their children in state-supported parochial schools. When expedient, they have actually banned the public expression of any religion other than Catholicism. Spain comes to mind.

I also remark that the Bible does not teach any of that. Not an ounce of it. In fact, the Bible is ultimately opposed to such nonsense. The government is a divine institution as are the home and the church. The three are separate and distinct. Education of a child is the responsibility of the parent fist and the government second - and is not the purview of the church at all.

This comes from someone who lived 140 years ago. Stuff has changed since then.

Nothing about those statements has changed. They were totally wrong when they were written, and they are just as wrong today. Here was the order:

(1) 1864: Pius IX states that the belief that "every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which ... he shall consider true" is a pernicious evil, a belief worthy of anathema.

(2) 1864: Pius IX states that a person holding the belief that the church and state ought to be separate is accursed.

.... six years later ....

(3) 1870: With these charming statements in mind, the archbishops and cardinals announce that the pope is infallible

Does that make any sense? They knew what he taught and what he believed.

You might consider reading the current article in the Catholic Encyclopedia online entitled "State and Church". It is here:

http://www.newadvent.org...

The stated goal of the Catholic Church is, I hate to say, that every country in the world become a Catholic State.

"The essential idea of such union is a condition of affairs where a State recognizes its natural and supernatural relation to the Church, professes the Faith, and practises the worship of the Church, protects it, enacts no laws to its hurt, while, in case of necessity and at its instance taking all just and requisite civil measures to forward the Divinely appointed purpose of the Church--in so far as all these make for the State's own essential purpose, the temporal happiness of its citizens."

They argue about like this in a Catholic state: "To permit the practices of other religions is contrary to the 'temporal happiness' of our citizens, so we may enact such laws as to prevent the free exercise of religion by our constituents." In practicality, that means a Catholic state can, with the Vatican's head nod, ban every other religion except Catholicism.

However, when Catholics are in the distinct minority, they plead tolerance, freedom of religion, and good will toward all. Let them get in the majority, and they ban every other religion! How's that for consistency?

Here's a good way to do it. Bear in mind that Dogknox (a Roman Catholic) refused to answer any of these questions, and they are simple True-False question.

TRUE Pope Pius X: "That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error"

_______ srehtiw: ""That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error"

TRUE: Pius IX "(It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church." (Error #55)

_______ srehtiw: (It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church." (Error #55)

I'm sure that Dogknox felt very uneasy to write "False" and thus state that two of his infallible eaders, Pius IX and X were all wrong.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
srehtiw
Posts: 491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 1:59:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/19/2014 6:31:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/19/2014 4:14:47 PM, srehtiw wrote:
At 1/18/2014 10:54:39 AM, annanicole wrote:


At any rate, the following has never been renounced (to my knowledge). On Dec 8, 1864, Pius IX issued his famous Syllabus of Errors as an adjunct (and actually a part of) the encyclical Quanta Cura. As to whether the papa was speaking infallibly or not, I do not quibble.

Observe the following:

(It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church." (Error #55)

Pius IX abhorred the developing system in America, particularly as it related to public education - and I suppose he noticed that the American First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Pius thought the such a statement was a pernicious evil. I ask, "Do American Roman Catholics believe in the separation of church and state as defined by our constitution?"

(It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true." (Error #15)

How's that? The pope of Rome is basically saying that freedom of religion, as a sociopolitical concept, is a grave error. It does very little good to speak of Catholic patriots and wave the flag with a statement like that in the background.

(It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "in the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship." (Error #77)

What's that saying? Well, it seems that papa is wanting to unite the church and state (for such has always characterized Catholicism), and - above that - to exclude every other form of religion. If that's not what it means, perchance someone will explain it.

(It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship." (Error #78)

Does one recognize a pattern? The pope in his encyclical is condemning the public services of every form of religion other than Roman Catholicism, is he not? If he had his way, everyone other than Catholics would worship "underground". Catholicism, in his view, should be embraced by and wedded to the state, and the state in turn should naturally ban the public practice of other religions.

*******

Have these statements ever been set aside? Has the Roman Catholic Church ever said, "We do not teach that now"? Moreover, are not the papal statements above in direct opposition to the United States Constitution?

The first sentence of the oath of office of a Catholic bishop reads as follows:

"I, _____, elect of the church of _____, from henceforth will be faithful and obedient to St. Peter the Apostle and to the holy Roman Church, and to our Lord, the Lord _____, Pope _____, and to his successors canonically entering ... "

In the middle, the oath reads, "

"Heretics, schismatics, and rebels, to our said Lord, or his foresaid successors, I will to my power persecute and oppose."

How can a citizen of the United States or Britain swear loyalty to the Constitution, Queen, etc. and at the same time swear allegiance to a foreign sovereign who says you are cursed if you adhere to the certain principles of the Constitution?

That is part of the reason I have said that Roman Catholicism is a national nuisance. That's not all of it, but it's part. They'd love to tax the incomes of atheists, then educate their children in state-supported parochial schools. When expedient, they have actually banned the public expression of any religion other than Catholicism. Spain comes to mind.

I also remark that the Bible does not teach any of that. Not an ounce of it. In fact, the Bible is ultimately opposed to such nonsense. The government is a divine institution as are the home and the church. The three are separate and distinct. Education of a child is the responsibility of the parent fist and the government second - and is not the purview of the church at all.

This comes from someone who lived 140 years ago. Stuff has changed since then.

Nothing about those statements has changed. They were totally wrong when they were written, and they are just as wrong today. Here was the order:

(1) 1864: Pius IX states that the belief that "every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which ... he shall consider true" is a pernicious evil, a belief worthy of anathema.

(2) 1864: Pius IX states that a person holding the belief that the church and state ought to be separate is accursed.

.... six years later ....

(3) 1870: With these charming statements in mind, the archbishops and cardinals announce that the pope is infallible

Does that make any sense? They knew what he taught and what he believed.

You might consider reading the current article in the Catholic Encyclopedia online entitled "State and Church". It is here:

http://www.newadvent.org...

The stated goal of the Catholic Church is, I hate to say, that every country in the world become a Catholic State.

"The essential idea of such union is a condition of affairs where a State recognizes its natural and supernatural relation to the Church, professes the Faith, and practises the worship of the Church, protects it, enacts no laws to its hurt, while, in case of necessity and at its instance taking all just and requisite civil measures to forward the Divinely appointed purpose of the Church--in so far as all these make for the State's own essential purpose, the temporal happiness of its citizens."

They argue about like this in a Catholic state: "To permit the practices of other religions is contrary to the 'temporal happiness' of our citizens, so we may enact such laws as to prevent the free exercise of religion by our constituents." In practicality, that means a Catholic state can, with the Vatican's head nod, ban every other religion except Catholicism.

However, when Catholics are in the distinct minority, they plead tolerance, freedom of religion, and good will toward all. Let them get in the majority, and they ban every other religion! How's that for consistency?

Here's a good way to do it. Bear in mind that Dogknox (a Roman Catholic) refused to answer any of these questions, and they are simple True-False question.

TRUE Pope Pius X: "That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error"

_______ srehtiw: ""That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error"

TRUE: Pius IX "(It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church." (Error #55)

_______ srehtiw: (It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church." (Error #55)

I'm sure that Dogknox felt very uneasy to write "False" and thus state that two of his infallible eaders, Pius IX and X were all wrong.

The church is just like all religions, it wants power and it wants everyone to belong to it. It's jus
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 7:56:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The stated goal of the Catholic Church is, I hate to say, that every country in the world become a Catholic State.

"The essential idea of such union is a condition of affairs where a State recognizes its natural and supernatural relation to the Church, professes the Faith, and practises the worship of the Church, protects it, enacts no laws to its hurt, while, in case of necessity and at its instance taking all just and requisite civil measures to forward the Divinely appointed purpose of the Church--in so far as all these make for the State's own essential purpose, the temporal happiness of its citizens."

They argue about like this in a Catholic state: "To permit the practices of other religions is contrary to the 'temporal happiness' of our citizens, so we may enact such laws as to prevent the free exercise of religion by our constituents." In practicality, that means a Catholic state can, with the Vatican's head nod, ban every other religion except Catholicism.

However, when Catholics are in the distinct minority, they plead tolerance, freedom of religion, and good will toward all. Let them get in the majority, and they ban every other religion! How's that for consistency?

Here's a good way to do it. Bear in mind that Dogknox (a Roman Catholic) refused to answer any of these questions, and they are simple True-False question.

TRUE Pope Pius X: "That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error"

_______ srehtiw: ""That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error"

TRUE: Pius IX "(It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church." (Error #55)

_______ srehtiw: (It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church." (Error #55)

I'm sure that Dogknox felt very uneasy to write "False" and thus state that two of his infallible eaders, Pius IX and X were all wrong.

srehtiw: The church is just like all religions, it wants power and it wants everyone to belong to it. It's jus


Anna: Your response was cut off for some reason, and apparently you missed the two questions that were asked (which are actually both the same thing).

We want to get you on record as saying that the teaching of popes Pius IX and X on the subject of church and state separation is wrong. All you have to do is write "FALSE" in the blanks:

TRUE Pope Pius X: "That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error"

_______ srehtiw: ""That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error"

TRUE: Pius IX "(It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church." (Error #55)

_______ srehtiw: (It is a grave error and anathema to teach that) "the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church." (Error #55)

I've scarcely met a Catholic who would state that the teachings of Pius IX and X were/are FALSE on the subject. Poor old Dogknox even refused to tell us if he supports the concept of the public school system as it exists in America.

Personally, I have never heard or seen a Roman Catholic in a leadership role in the Catholic Church who has ever condemned the union of church and state.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."