Catholics

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
New question:

What is the Catholic viewpoint on repentance? Please explain the process and what exactly you are repenting of.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
New question:

What is the Catholic viewpoint on repentance? Please explain the process and what exactly you are repenting of.

When we sin we turn away from God and towards something else.
Sin is an offence against God and a rupture in our relationship with him.

Repentance involves:
Recognising and admitting we have sinned.
A turning back to God and away from whatever we turned towards.
A resolve not to sin again and taking steps to avoid sin in future.

Then there is Contrition which involves the above but also includes
Sorrow at having sinned and offended God.
A desire to be reconciled with God.
A willingness to make amends for the sin.
 

Old Man

Member
Apr 28, 2011
76
14
8
Steubenville, OH
stpaulcenter.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This from Jimmy Akin, on May 3,2016: "What if my priest doesn't believe in transubstantiation? Does the consecration still take place?"

The answer is that it does. It is not necessary for the priest to have the specific intention that transubstantiation take place so long as he has the generalintention to celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist, even if he has a very erroneous understanding of that sacrament. "

So, it seems as if the Orthodox have a valid Eucharist.

I stand by my answer, (that I would say yes that if a priest celebrated the Eucharist without intending to do what the Church intends it is not valid). Jimmy's a great guy and he is correct, but I don't think he's answering the same question. Jimmy is addressing belief. I am addressing intent. If a priest goes through the motions flawlessly, saying all the words accurately but has a faulty intention, transubstantiation does not take place.

Here's a scenario: A Nazi breaks into a country church and demands, at gunpoint, that the little country priest confect the Eucharist so that they can desecrate it. One acceptable option would be to refuse and be killed--martyrdom and glory. The unacceptable option would be to ascent to their demands and be instrumental in an act of desecration. A third option would be acceptable, if the priest feels that his flock needs him to survive this incident. He could go through the motions with the intention that the sacrament not take place. The priest can withhold his consent for God to use him to perform the miracle.

The Orthodox do have valid Eucharist.
 

Old Man

Member
Apr 28, 2011
76
14
8
Steubenville, OH
stpaulcenter.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
New question:

What is the Catholic viewpoint on repentance? Please explain the process and what exactly you are repenting of.

I think you might be referring to the Sacrament of Penance sometimes called the Sacrament of Reconciliation or more commonly "Confession". Mungo defined repentance very well.

The process of confession. Stand in line and when its my turn I go into a little tiny room with a kneeler and a screen. I kneel down and say "Bless me father, for I have sinned. It has been 1 month since my last confession." Then I tell my sins, number and kind, and then the priest gives me advice on how to avoid those sins in the future and he gives me a penance. Penance is an act the penitent performs as a token of his contrition and reparation for the sin. Usually my penance is something like "Say three Hail Mary's for the homeless." Then I say a good Act of Contrition and then... and then... Jesus Christ, using the priest as his mouthpiece, forgives me. "I absolve you..." I have no doubt. I am forgiven. It is the power of binding and losing that Jesus bestowed on the apostles. The power that is handed on from the apostles to their successor bishops down through the centuries to the priest sitting before me. He acts "in persona Christi", in the person of Christ and forgives me.

BTW, Catholics can and do go "straight to God". I examine my conscience daily and beg forgiveness for my many sins of commission and omission. Thoughts, words and deeds. But once a month I go to the Sacrament and I hear the words of absolution and I have a clean slate.

What exactly am I repenting of? My sins. I am a sinner. Jesus challenges me to love him with my whole heart mind soul and strength. I have attachments that prevent that. Jesus challenges me to love my neighbor as myself. I have some pretty unlovable neighbors and so I fail daily. Maybe not mortally--that is unto death--but still not living up to the standard Jesus set for me. So, I examine my conscience and beg forgiveness daily and then once a month I take it all to confession and dump it. How come I have to keep going back? Some of the same sins over and over? Am I just presuming on God's forgiveness? No. I am truly sorry when I go into the confessional. I do make a firm resolution never to commit that sin again. But I'm weak. God knows how weak I am. I fail. Again and again. But that's the beauty. It's not how many times I fail, it's whether I'm willing to get back up, humbly go to confession, admit my weakness and try again.

My life with the Sacrament has been a journey. When I was young I had big sins to confess. As I've stuck with it, God has helped me overcome most of the big ones, but now, with the big ones out of the way, God keeps me humble by showing me the myriad smaller sins that I commit over and over, day after day, out of habit. They are much harder to get rid of, but if I keep at it, even those smaller sins will begin to lessen until hopefully, at the end of my earthly journey I will achieve perfection and be welcomed immediately into eternal beatitude. If I don't reach perfection, thank God there is another way than just damnation. If I am in a state of friendship with God but still have some attachments that keep me from perfect union with God, He will help me finish the process after death so that I can be welcomed into heaven eventually. Thank God for Purgatory!

But perfection is the goal. None of it is possible on my own. Everything is grace. Without grace I don't even have the desire to repent. Hell is full of people with similar backgrounds to mine. In fact there are souls burning in Hell right now who have not sinned as badly as I have. But for some reason God has graced me with a desire for him and the humility to admit my crimes and repent. He has also planted me in the Catholic Church where I have all these helps to guide me home. I don't have to try to figure it all out for myself. I can read the bible with confidence. I don't have to wonder whether Jesus was married or whether the obelisk in St. Peters is a pagan idol or not. I don't have to try to figure out how to structure a worship service. I don't have to wonder which version of the Bible I should use. I don't have to try to find the right church to attend when I move to a new town. I can walk into any Catholic Church in the world and meet Jesus there. He's waiting for me. In the Confessional behind the screen, ready to listen to me pour out my failings and so eager to forgive me and give me another chance. It's why he died. He rose again and ascended to the Father and sent His Holy Spirit to live in the Church, and in me, and the priest hearing my confession.

Sorry for rambling. But I love this Sacrament of Reconciliation!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mungo

tabletalk

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2017
847
384
63
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I stand by my answer, (that I would say yes that if a priest celebrated the Eucharist without intending to do what the Church intends it is not valid). Jimmy's a great guy and he is correct, but I don't think he's answering the same question. Jimmy is addressing belief. I am addressing intent. If a priest goes through the motions flawlessly, saying all the words accurately but has a faulty intention, transubstantiation does not take place.

Here's a scenario: A Nazi breaks into a country church and demands, at gunpoint, that the little country priest confect the Eucharist so that they can desecrate it. One acceptable option would be to refuse and be killed--martyrdom and glory. The unacceptable option would be to ascent to their demands and be instrumental in an act of desecration. A third option would be acceptable, if the priest feels that his flock needs him to survive this incident. He could go through the motions with the intention that the sacrament not take place. The priest can withhold his consent for God to use him to perform the miracle.

The Orthodox do have valid Eucharist.

What is the effect on the parishioner when a Eucharist is faulty?
 

Old Man

Member
Apr 28, 2011
76
14
8
Steubenville, OH
stpaulcenter.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No effect at all. In other words, no guilt is incurred, of course, because the communicant is unaware that it is an unconsecrated host he is receiving. However, the special graces proper to the sacrament are not granted because it is only a piece of bread he is receiving. However the communicant's intention is good and some grace is given even if not the full grace of the sacrament.

I don't know all the ins and outs, but I do know that God doesn't demand the impossible and He fills in the gaps that occur due to no fault of his child who is making a good effort.
 

Josho

Millennial Christian
Staff member
Jul 19, 2015
5,814
5,754
113
28
The Land of Aus
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Hmm what about the supernatural experiences you guys have had in the Catholic Church, signs, wonders, miracles you have seen and experienced, among your denomination? I have heard of awesome unique stuff happening in Catholic Churches where the actual blood of Jesus would start to drip out of a statue of Jesus, or a communion bread would turn into Jesus's blood, and they were sent through tests and they could not get actual DNA, but they could confirm it was blood.

And what about some of the real revivals that happened in the Catholic church, what ones of have you have heard of, where there was really a turning back to Jesus, many getting saved, whole towns getting saved, many relationships getting restored, etc.
 
Last edited:

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
That's because they don't want to discuss the thing that they're well known for. If it's a part of their beliefs, I don't understand why it can't be discussed. It's a serious subject and no one wants to talk about it. Why?
What can't be discussed? The Eucharist?
In post #155 you imply your private commission to correct Catholics with James 5.
In post #157 you imply Catholics are walking in error.
In post #159 you make this false assumption that Catholics don't want to talk about whatever.
You don't want to discuss anything, your mind is made up.
 

Job

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2014
2,664
1,309
113
somewhere
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What can't be discussed? The Eucharist?
In post #155 you imply your private commission to correct Catholics with James 5.
In post #157 you imply Catholics are walking in error.
In post #159 you make this false assumption that Catholics don't want to talk about whatever.
You don't want to discuss anything, your mind is made up.
Idolatry. Apparently you guys offend really easy when confronted with the truth. If you'd like to continue the conversation we were having in that "Crosses" thread, I'm open for it. I don't think you are though. You haven't been back since the last dust off.

In any case, this isn't a debate thread. If you would like to debate this you know where to find me.

Have a nice day.
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This is not a debate thread, but is a thread where we could learn more about Catholics, these are all pretty basic questions I'm starting this thread of with, but I think a lot of us other Christians have been taught wrongly about the Catholics. Now i would rather hear from Catholics themselves, about what are the differences between Catholics to other Christians are? What makes a Catholic a Catholic? What are the traditions in the Catholic Church? What's the significance of Mary the mother of Jesus to the Catholics? When did the Catholic Church start? What were the original Catholics like compared to today?

Others please feel free to ask questions to our Catholic members on this forum as well, but please try not to turn this into a debate..... If that's possible. Lets give the Catholics a fair go.
Josho,

How about before you ask any questions of our Catholic brothers you start here: Catechism of the Catholic Church

If your question can't be answered on that website then there no Catholic members of the Catholic Church or this website that can answer you with authority...only with opinion.

It baffles me that our Catholic brothers are criticized on this website for their beliefs, however, the RCC puts all of their teachings and doctrines on a website for ANYONE to read, unlike most churches. Most of the people on this website have their own personal beliefs that change over time or when they discover something new in scripture. They are applauded for GROWING and learning scripture when they discover something "new" that was actually answered by the Apostolic or Church Fathers hundreds if not over 1,000 years ago. A Catholic is chastised on this website for adhering to something that has been taught by Christianity for almost 2,000 years. Teachings that are backed up by historical writings such as the Didache or the Apostolic and Church Fathers. But if Billy Graham or Luther or Calvin come up with a different interpretation then they are revolutionary; true bible scholars who have revealed the "truth' of scripture. The RCC isn't hiding or changing anything like a lot of churches do. I respect them for that. Even though we may disagree with them on some things they have remained consistent for over 1,000 years unlike us protestants who think Calvin and Luther didn't go far enough 500 years ago so we said they were wrong in their doctrine. Then we said 300 years ago that the men who disagreed with Calvin and Luther were wrong so we protested the men who protested against Calvin and Luther. And then new people 100 years ago protested the people who protested against the people who protested against Calvin and Luther. When does it end? It makes me feel like scripture isn't true or that there is no truth in scripture. It's all a matter how I am feeling that day.

What's the significance of Mary you ask? No Mary, no Jesus. That's the significance of Mary.

My two cents worth. Mary
 
  • Like
Reactions: Old Man

DPMartin

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
2,698
794
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Josho,

How about before you ask any questions of our Catholic brothers you start here: Catechism of the Catholic Church

If your question can't be answered on that website then there no Catholic members of the Catholic Church or this website that can answer you with authority...only with opinion.

It baffles me that our Catholic brothers are criticized on this website for their beliefs, however, the RCC puts all of their teachings and doctrines on a website for ANYONE to read, unlike most churches. Most of the people on this website have their own personal beliefs that change over time or when they discover something new in scripture. They are applauded for GROWING and learning scripture when they discover something "new" that was actually answered by the Apostolic or Church Fathers hundreds if not over 1,000 years ago. A Catholic is chastised on this website for adhering to something that has been taught by Christianity for almost 2,000 years. Teachings that are backed up by historical writings such as the Didache or the Apostolic and Church Fathers. But if Billy Graham or Luther or Calvin come up with a different interpretation then they are revolutionary; true bible scholars who have revealed the "truth' of scripture. The RCC isn't hiding or changing anything like a lot of churches do. I respect them for that. Even though we may disagree with them on some things they have remained consistent for over 1,000 years unlike us protestants who think Calvin and Luther didn't go far enough 500 years ago so we said they were wrong in their doctrine. Then we said 300 years ago that the men who disagreed with Calvin and Luther were wrong so we protested the men who protested against Calvin and Luther. And then new people 100 years ago protested the people who protested against the people who protested against Calvin and Luther. When does it end? It makes me feel like scripture isn't true or that there is no truth in scripture. It's all a matter how I am feeling that day.

What's the significance of Mary you ask? No Mary, no Jesus. That's the significance of Mary.

My two cents worth. Mary


though the Lord obliviously used, provided, and protected the catholic church, even unto this day, one should understand that it started out as the church of the state, or church of the empire if you like, even guys like St. Gregory the Great (in the 500's I do believe) was chosen by the emperor of his day, he didn't want to be pope in Rome.


and needless to say once Rome broke up, the church was the only semblance of civilized thinking in Europe until nations and kings where establish and once the church that was the ruler of the "holy roman empire" influence and power began to wane corruption became more and more obvious, that was already there. it became an organization that thought to be entitled to rule the western culture. so world power like that had nothing to do with the goals of the gospel. yes even though many low levels worked to the good of God's Kingdom.

no different then anything else left in the hands of man, hence those who thought the gospel was more important then the delusional authority of the catholic church leaders they moved on to greener pastures, and not without violence mind you.

this is no different then Israel's history, once the Lord left the kingship in the hands of men within four kings the kingdom was divided and corrupted in their worship. Israel was told by their king to worship gold caves because he reasoned that if his subjects would go to Jerusalem to worship he would loss his subject to the king in Jerusalem the house of David. it happens that fast. he corrupted the people to keep his place in power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Job

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
though the Lord obliviously used, provided, and protected the catholic church, even unto this day, one should understand that it started out as the church of the state, or church of the empire if you like, even guys like St. Gregory the Great (in the 500's I do believe) was chosen by the emperor of his day, he didn't want to be pope in Rome.


and needless to say once Rome broke up, the church was the only semblance of civilized thinking in Europe until nations and kings where establish and once the church that was the ruler of the "holy roman empire" influence and power began to wane corruption became more and more obvious, that was already there. it became an organization that thought to be entitled to rule the western culture. so world power like that had nothing to do with the goals of the gospel. yes even though many low levels worked to the good of God's Kingdom.

no different then anything else left in the hands of man, hence those who thought the gospel was more important then the delusional authority of the catholic church leaders they moved on to greener pastures, and not without violence mind you.

this is no different then Israel's history, once the Lord left the kingship in the hands of men within four kings the kingdom was divided and corrupted in their worship. Israel was told by their king to worship gold caves because he reasoned that if his subjects would go to Jerusalem to worship he would loss his subject to the king in Jerusalem the house of David. it happens that fast. he corrupted the people to keep his place in power.
Dear sir,

I am a student of Christian history. What do you mean by "church of the state" or "church of the empire"?

Curious Mary
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Idolatry. Apparently you guys offend really easy when confronted with the truth. If you'd like to continue the conversation we were having in that "Crosses" thread, I'm open for it. I don't think you are though. You haven't been back since the last dust off.

In any case, this isn't a debate thread. If you would like to debate this you know where to find me.

Have a nice day.
I said a lot that you ignored. You have a private definition of "idol" that isn't biblical, and I don't need to get in the last word after your nonsense has been repeatedly refuted.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
though the Lord obliviously used, provided, and protected the catholic church, even unto this day, one should understand that it started out as the church of the state, or church of the empire if you like, even guys like St. Gregory the Great (in the 500's I do believe) was chosen by the emperor of his day, he didn't want to be pope in Rome.
Please provide scholarly evidence (i.e. a Ph.D. in history) that supports these 2 lies.


and needless to say once Rome broke up, the church was the only semblance of civilized thinking in Europe until nations and kings where establish and once the church that was the ruler of the "holy roman empire" influence and power began to wane corruption became more and more obvious, that was already there. it became an organization that thought to be entitled to rule the western culture. so world power like that had nothing to do with the goals of the gospel..
That is an opinion, and nothing more.
yes even though many low levels worked to the good of God's Kingdom

no different then anything else left in the hands of man, hence those who thought the gospel was more important then the delusional authority of the catholic church leaders they moved on to greener pastures, and not without violence mind you.
That's not fair. We admit to the existence of bad popes, all 2.5% of them. Can you admit to the amoral and hypocritical reformers?
You are forced to re-write history to make it fit your system.

Another pointless "my daddy can beat up your daddy" discussion.
 

Job

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2014
2,664
1,309
113
somewhere
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I said a lot that you ignored.
I followed the links you posted. It was clear to me that you hadn't read the information in your links. If you had you wouldn't have posted it. Well I did read it and it backed everything I've been saying.
I posted some of it in the "Crosses" thread. You should go over and have a look. It's a good read. Especially the parts that refute everything you've said.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
150 Reasons Why I Became (and Remain) a Catholic
1. Best One-Sentence Summary: I am convinced that the Catholic Church conforms much more closely to all of the biblical data, offers the only coherent view of the history of Christianity (i.e., Christian, apostolic Tradition), and possesses the most profound and sublime Christian morality, spirituality, social ethic, and philosophy.

2. Alternate: I am a Catholic because I sincerely believe, by virtue of much cumulative evidence, that Catholicism is true, and that the Catholic Church is the visible Church divinely established by our Lord Jesus, against which the gates of hell cannot and will not prevail (Mt 16:18), thereby possessing an authority to which I feel bound in Christian duty to submit.

3. 2nd Alternate: I left Protestantism because it was seriously deficient in its interpretation of the Bible (e.g., “faith alone” and its missing many other “Catholic” doctrines – see evidences below), inconsistently selective in its espousal of various doctrines of Catholic Tradition (e.g., the canon of the Bible), inadequate in its ecclesiology, lacking a sensible view of Christian history (e.g., “Scripture alone”; ignorance or inconsistent understanding of of development of doctrine), compromised morally (e.g., contraception, divorce), and unbiblically schismatic and (in effect, or logical reduction, if not always in actual belief) relativistic.

Disclaimer: I don’t therefore believe that Protestantism is all bad (not by a long shot – indeed, I think it is a pretty good thing overall), but these are some of the major deficiencies I eventually saw as fatal to the “theory” of Protestantism, over against Catholicism. All Catholics must regard baptized, Nicene, Chalcedonian Protestants as Christians.

6. Catholicism, because of its unified, complete, fully supernatural Christian vision, mitigates against secularization and humanism.

11. Catholicism rejects the “State Church,” which has led to governments dominating Christianity rather than vice versa, caesaropapism, or a nominal, merely “go through the motions” institutional religion.

14. Catholicism retains (to the fullest extent) the elements of mystery, supernatural, and the sacred in Christianity, thus opposing itself to secularization, where the sphere of the religious in life becomes greatly limited.

18. Protestant churches (especially evangelicals), are far too often guilty of putting their pastors on too high of a pedestal. In effect, often pastors (at least in some denominational traditions) becomes a “pope,” to varying degrees. Because of this, evangelical congregations often experience a severe crisis and/or split up when a pastor leaves, thus proving that their philosophy is overly man-centered, rather than God-centered (Catholic parishes usually don’t experience such a crisis when a priest departs). Many pastors have far more power in their congregations than the pope has over the daily life of any Catholic.

21. Many Protestants take a dim view towards Christian history in general, especially the years from 313 (Constantine’s conversion) to 1517 (Luther’s arrival). This ignorance and hostility to Catholic Tradition leads to theological relativism, anti-Catholicism, and a constant, unnecessary process of “reinventing the wheel.

150 Reasons Why I Became (and Remain) a Catholic
 

DPMartin

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
2,698
794
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Please provide scholarly evidence (i.e. a Ph.D. in history) that supports these 2 lies.


That is an opinion, and nothing more. That's not fair. We admit to the existence of bad popes, all 2.5% of them. Can you admit to the amoral and hypocritical reformers?
You are forced to re-write history to make it fit your system.

Another pointless "my daddy can beat up your daddy" discussion.


huh? what? your not some nut job are you? why do people take offence for things they don't do, or are not responsible for? you didn't do it, your not an authority in the church that is responsible for its, what, 1600 or so years of history, as a church of the state are you? (it still is, as a matter of fact, the Vatican is its own state, and the Roman Catholic Church is the Church thereof) or are you just looking for a fight, or an excuse to be angry a chance to exercise your God given right to be given to wrath, for what other men do? what's next, your head starts spinning and green slime comes out?


its a simple observation of history, that is true, read your history books even the church itself has such history info, its not derogatory, just true. all organizations such as religions nations (Israel) corporations have ups and downs in their history. what delusional thinking would make you think that the Catholic Church is exempt? doesn't matter what denomination in the case your talking about, Baptists have issues, Lutherans, Calvinists, have issues, and so do the rest, so what. get over it, and stop acting like you've just been traumatized. you're not going to cry about it are you?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Job

DPMartin

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
2,698
794
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Dear sir,

I am a student of Christian history. What do you mean by "church of the state" or "church of the empire"?

Curious Mary


do to the fact that you don't know, shows me you just might not be. I mean you do understand why back in the day England separated its self from the Catholic authorities after Queen Elisabeth was excommunicated and England formed the church of England, and the king was its vicar, right? you do understand why the US constitutional writers agreed to separation of Church and state right? also in the same respect the emperor was the vicar (while there were yet emperors) of the Catholic churches Greek or Eastern and Roman. the Catholic Church in its hay day was "the Church" hence defining itself as universal (Catholic), and persecuted and prosecuted all heresies it deem as heresies. it executed civil and criminal courts through out Europe. back in King James' day that was an issue with the Church of Rome, England disagreed that the Catholic church should hold civil court. there is a book about Sir Edward Coke that points out some of this history.

maybe you should read some more on what a Church of the state is. also today its also my understanding that now after the Chinese cast out and persecuted the Church (and other religions) that they also have a church of the state that is monitored by the state of China for the Christian population.

the info ain't hard to find, good luck with that.
 
Last edited:

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
do to the fact that you don't know, shows me you just might not be. I mean you do understand why back in the day England separated its self from the Catholic authorities after Queen Elisabeth was excommunicated and England formed the church of England, and the king was its vicar, right? you do understand why the US constitutional writers agreed to separation of Church and state right? also in the same respect the emperor was the vicar (while there were yet emperors) of the Catholic churches Greek or Eastern and Roman. the Catholic Church in its hay day was "the Church" hence defining itself as universal (Catholic), and persecuted and prosecuted all heresies it deem as heresies. it executed civil and criminal courts through out Europe. back in King James' day that was an issue with the Church of Rome, England disagreed that the Catholic church should hold civil court. there is a book about Sir Edward Coke that points out some of this history.

maybe you should read some more on what a Church of the state is. also today its also my understanding that now after the Chinese cast out and persecuted the Church (and other religions) that they also have a church of the state that is monitored by the state of China for the Christian population.

the info ain't hard to find, good luck with that.
I can't find the words "separation of Church and State" in the Constitution.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I can't find the words "separation of Church and State" in the Constitution.
And I can't find in DPMartin's post where he said it was in the Constitution.

US history tells that the phrase "separation of church and state" was coibed by T Jefferson in a private letter. He of course, didn't have a direct hand in writing the constitution. But his philosophy was taken into consideration long before he wrote that private letter. Indeed, the founding fathers believed it and is a dominate force behind the first amendment.

But... I find it interesting that DP's post covered a connection of gov't and church over a 1500 year span of world history, and your comment is about a phrase not in the constitution, while DP never said it was.