Original Sin?

Quote: Nareed

Seeing how few people are "saints" even by the twisted definition of your church (and, truly, so few of them are admirable), then what makes you think the "fallible and weak" are qualified to hold the reins of spiritual power?

What are you talking about?!? Which saint is not admirable?

Anyway, part of the human condition is we are fallible and weak, especially when it comes to power. Really only the humble are qualified to hold the reins of spiritual or any type of power, as Jesus taught over and over and over and over again. However, the Church is not made up of angels it is made up of human beings who were at times great sinners. Again I really think you should focus on the saints.

Quote: FrGamble

Translation: You have no idea what you are talking about

"Fighting the Liberalism of his time, Pope St. Pius X taught that the Church must have the authority to promote the proper end of society – the salvation of its members – and direct all its members toward that end. “That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error,” he states firmly. “Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, refuting and condemning the doctrine of the separation of Church and State.. Pope Leo XIII insists that the State has the natural obligation to assure that the people will live according to the laws of God. He calls the separation between Church and State “an absurdity” for, “since God is the source of all goodness and justice, it is absolutely ridiculous that the State should pay no attention to the laws of God or render them abortive by contrary enactments. The State is not only obligated to protect the temporal and physical well-being of the people, it is obligated to protect their spiritual well-being as well.”

http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/m019rpChurchStateRelations.html

I find it very interesting that you would selectively quote from a website article making the argument that we should not have separation of the Church and State. Did you look at this website and what it is all about?

Here is a much easier read that explains a little bit about the development through history of the doctrine. It might be helpful:

Church and State

Quote: FrGamble

I find it very interesting that you would selectively quote

So the popes quoted are not actual quotes?

"The medieval era was the golden age of Christian unity, of harmony between the two powers (Church ans state), and of the obedience of princes and peoples to the authority of the Church. Then came the Reformation, which was a revolt against the authority of the Church, the rupture of Christian unity, and the origin of profound civilizational change. Later, by virtue of logical as well as historical sequence, came the Revolution, which was a revolt against the sovereignty of God Himself, a schism within the Catholic nations, a disruption of the relationship between the two powers, and the beginnings of the laicization of European culture. Within these historical perspectives, whose focus of origin was in the past, Leo XIII could not but call for a return to a Christian unity once possessed, to an ecclesiastical obedience once rendered, to the matrix of a culture once fertile of Christian forms... Vatican II, however, relinquished this retrospective view of history and adopted a prospective view. Its perspectives open out from the present. They are set by the signs of the times."

http://www.library.georgetown.edu/woodstock/murray/1966h

In other words, the Church fought the separation
right up to Vatican II, when world opinion forced
them to change. As with all things, the Church
never willingly gives anything up, they always
have to be forced into it. The arrogance level
never ceases to astound among 'gods' people.

Thanks for linking to what looks like a much better site and an interesting read. I like how the article (I haven't finished it yet) connects the teaching of a great Pope, Leo XIII who died in 1903 with the teaching of Vatican II in regards to the understanding of Church and State. Did you read the whole thing yet?

The Vatican and popes thought the world
would come to an end if Church and state
were separated and the Church couldn't
control everything. Absolute power corrupts
absolutely, as we saw in the Church before
the Reformation.

Doesn't FrG wonder where the radical concept
of separation came from? It came from Europe,
where the Church and the state were one and
the same for hundreds of years. It's so laughable
when he says the Church did nothing wrong,
it's the state that did all the evil. Absolving your
right hand for the evil done by your left hand
is not a defense.

Quote: Evenbob

Absolute power corrupts
absolutely, as we saw in the Church before
the Reformation.

And we see the effects of power corruptive influence in the Church after the Reformation and as we see in Protestant Churches, the halls of congress, the White House, and in our own hearts.

Quote:

It's so laughable
when he says the Church did nothing wrong,
it's the state that did all the evil. Absolving your
right hand for the evil done by your left hand
is not a defense.

I have never said the Church did nothing wrong, you are laughable in your misrepresentation of what I've said.

Quote: FrGamble

And we see the effects of power corruptive influence in the Church after the Reformation and as we see in Protestant Churches.

There you go AGAIN, you really can't
help it, can you. Anytime the Church
is accused, you deflect the accusation
by pointing at others who did the same
of worse. Do you know who does this
in real life? The guilty. They can't own
up to it, so they constantly deflect, to
hopefully make themselves look better
by comparison.

I think the Church's past is a millstone
around your neck and you're sick of
defending it and wish it would just go away.
But seriously, how can it. You're tied
to a abhorrent organization with a terrible
past and you're stuck with it. You've
hitched your wagon to an Edsel instead
of a Cadillac.

Quote: Evenbob

There you go AGAIN, you really can't
help it, can you. Anytime the Church
is accused, you deflect the accusation
by pointing at others who did the same
of worse. Do you know who does this
in real life? The guilty. They can't own
up to it, so they constantly deflect, to
hopefully make themselves look better
by comparison.

Yes, the Church is guilty, but my efforts are not to deflect the accusation. I just want you and others, but mostly you to be reasonable in your attacks against the Church. Some of your comparisons and statements are ludicrous if you would stop to think a moment about them. Your conclusions about what the bad times of the Church's history mean concerning how the Church should be viewed today are not logical and are not even proposed by rational people for any other group or person.

Quote:

I think the Church's past is a millstone
around your neck and you're sick of
defending it and wish it would just go away.
But seriously, how can it. You're tied
to a abhorrent organization with a terrible
past and you're stuck with it. You've
hitched your wagon to an Edsel instead
of a Cadillac.

I would gladly take the history of the Catholic Church over any other organization in the world, warts and all.

Quote: FrGamble

Which saint is not admirable?

Which one is?

Quote:

Anyway, part of the human condition is we are fallible and weak,

You make it sound like being human is a disease of some sort.

Quote:

Really only the humble are qualified to hold the reins of spiritual or any type of power, as Jesus taught over and over and over and over again. However, the Church is not made up of angels it is made up of human beings who were at times great sinners. Again I really think you should focus on the saints.

Again, so few people, admirable or otherwise, being saints, and none being so in life, what qualifies any diseased, weak, fallible humans like you or Bergoglio to hold the reins of spiritual power?