Roman Catholicism and Liberty (Ecumenical)

There is no history of the RCC hierarchy trying to stop the consolidation of power. It would have been an incredible step for a church that is a part of the state to fight for others who refuse to submit to it's power. The belief that those who disagreed with it had a God given right to do so has never been a practice.

Well, two things. No one has a right to error. Ever. Assuming one believes what the Catholic Church teaches about herself, then it logically follows that any disagreements with her on doctrine or morals cannot be "God-given."

But remember that the Church and the state have butted heads over the centuries, and they were not the same thing except in the Papal States. And the Church HAS often taken the side of heretics and pagans against the state--perhaps the most obvious example is Paul III forbidding, under pain of excommunication, enslaving the natives of the New World.

Given human history, the terrible atrocities that result from this merger, and the heretical beliefs that emerge because of it the thought terrifies me. I think your opinion is held by a lot of RC's.

It actually *has* to be held by Catholics, as per the Syllabus of Errors. I'm sorry it terrifies you, but it really doesn't have to be as bad as the worst examples we can cite. There are plenty of times in history when there was a state religion but that state religion did not use its full power to crush the opposition.

I'm a Baptist. It was the non conformist Baptistic churches that suffered the worst of the persecutions from the state churches. I have no desire to see us return to that system and theology that teaches dependence on a church rather than liberty in Christ Jesus.

I don't hold to the "Trail of Blood" theory vis a vis Baptist origins, but I will admit that Baptists have certainly often been on the wrong end of persecution, even here in America. And my dependence on the Church really doesn't grate against my sense of liberty anymore than having a Constitution and a Federal Government does. Liberty doesn't mean complete absence of structure...it simply means that the structures do not surpass their proper bounds.

What role do you believe (if any) did a church becoming dominant in a state have in how doctrine/dogma was established.

There may well be a role. But once you believe that the universal Church is preserved from error by the Holy Ghost, then the question becomes somewhat moot. The right doctrine/dogma will triumph because that's what Christ promised....however it happens.

I think this is where liberty in Jesus Christ, or dependence on a church is triggered (the state-church connection). I don't think this is limited to the RCC. From what I've learned of the Reformation churches they have some similarities in structure and beliefs.

Right, and Gamecock is right about this. My father had taxes go to the Lutheran Church in Germany when he worked there even though he is Catholic. And vice versa Protestants in Italy.

We have evolved a kinda strange view on this in modern America that I'm not sure is even consonant with our own traditions. The Founding Fathers, who no one can accuse of being insensitive to the ideas of liberty, were not by any means opposed to established churches below the Federal level. From Wikipedia "State Religion":

The First Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly forbids the U.S. federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts did not disestablish its official church until 1833, more than forty years after the ratification of the First Amendment; and local official establishments of religion persisted even later.

My opinion, in a nutshell, is that yes, established churches can be problematic but they needn't necessarily be. And I think in any case they are vastly preferable to what our society is evolving into now, which is a state completely devoid of religion.

But once you believe that the universal Church is preserved from error by the Holy Ghost, then the question becomes somewhat moot. The right doctrine/dogma will triumph because that's what Christ promised....however it happens.

This is what we see time and again.

The Canon of Scripture is a good example, it was formed without any dominant church deciding.

But our society isn't evolving into that. It's evolving into the govt becoming our god and our serving it our religion.

The shame of it is that several Christian churches look to the state to perform our Christian duties in place of us and in so doing are helping this disaster happen. Maybe the heads of these churches think like the health insurance ceo's that they can manipulate this beast to their benefit to only discover at the end that they were the "useful idiots".

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.