Interesting side-bar. I went to a Catholic University and we were required to take 2 years of religion/philosophy.  But I actaully enjoyed most of the classes.  The one about the history of the Early Christian Church was taught by a Methodist Minister.  The course covered the period of just after the death and resurrection of Christ to about 400AD.

The founding of the colonies?  Or of the US?  Clearly the latter is incorrect since Maryland was founded as a Catholic Colony (Lord Baltimore being a catholic).

DrGuy - the treaty I was referring to is called "Reichskonkordat" and it is not without controversy because it was signed under Hitler's reign in 1933. I won't go into the controversial issues here, but the information is easy to research.

The Federal Republic of Germany was viewed as the legal successor of the 3rd Reich and so the treaty remained valid and is valid today.

LINK

Freudian slip.

lula

The Protestant movement began in Germany when Luther, a Catholic, in various ways rebelled against the authority of the CC. In 1534, Henry VIII Tudor, a Catholic in England basically did the same...the differences being that Luther threw out the Sacraments and denied CC teachings  by preaching heretical doctrines while Henry apostasized and made himself the head of his own Church of England.   

Leauki posts:

The Catholic Chruch and Faith was deeply rooted in England for centuries.....but was supplanted with the Protestant Church of England. The immediate cause of the rupture was indeed about theological difference... the Pope refused to sanction Henry's divorce which both Scripture and the Church forbade.  And yes, check history...after the apostasy of England from Cathollicism came the persecution of Catholics and grave injustices....I'm referring to the Acts of Parliament passed in the reigns of Henry's successors, Edward VI and Elizabeth...both became the supreme heads of the Church of England. Under them, to become Catholic was to commit an act of high treason. Catholics were forced to attend Protestant worship, or their lands would be forfeited and they became civil outlaws.

Espionage and treachery against Catholics was rewarded. A 1605 statue in Parliament read, "Any person discovering where Mass was celebrated, shall have his own pardon and one-third of the goods forfeited by the attainder." Executions speedily began. Sir James Stephens reckons them at about 800 a year. Cardinal Newman's Present Position of Catholics in England, pp. 215-217.

In England today, a Catholic still cannot hold office or become monarch but a Muslim, Jew, Jehovah Witness or Quaker can.

Leauki posts:

No. Leauki, the Catholic Church didn't fail and never will or can fail...for as Christ promised He would be with her until the end of time and the gates of Hell will not prevail.

Yes, granted the frail, human side of the Mystical Body of Christ is full of sinners and Catholics themselves condemn the bad conduct of anyone of her individual members, her priests and religious included, stonger than you. Our Lord also told us faithful that scandals would come and woe to those who cause them.

lula posts:

Dr.Guy:

Yes, Protestant anti-Catholicsm was at the strongest during the time of the founding of the colonies but it went through 1865...Catholics got to vote around the same time slavery was abolished.

After all, the Puritans had come from England where they were cradled and most bitter against the Church and Catholicism. Ever hear of the yearly celebration on Guy Fawkes Day aka "Popes Day"? That's when the Colonialists paraded burned effigies of the Pope up and down the Eastern coastline while the children sang anti-Catholic songs. This went on for 150 years until 1775 when George Washington wanting to secure the aid of French Catholic Canada and Catholic France in the revolution put a stop to it.

That the colony of Maryland had a Catholic founder didn't change the fact that there were still social, political and religious constraints on Catholics. A law stated that "none who profess to exercise the Popish religion can be protected in this province."   

utemia posts:

In view of the fact that this is off topic, and I don't want to get KFC's dander up, I'll direct you to to another thread in which the Treaty was discussed.

https://forums.joeuser.com/139973/page/1/#replies

If you can open it, my comments begin with post #41.

Thanks for the link Lula, I checked it out but it is a LOT to read and I only skimmed over the threads.

The link I gave is to a translated version of the Reichskonkordat and there is a small explanation why a international treaty made under Hitler was carried over to the new german state. That is about as far as I wanted to go into it.

PS
Germany is a special case in that it wasn't until the 19th century that a somewhat cohesive political union that could be called a nation was established. Before that it were many many little small states, citiy states, big empires like Habsburg (which was catholic)  and Prussia (which wasn't), church states etc and the denomination played a political role. It always had to do with money - the church collected taxes and having catholics living in an area meant that they could collect. If that area was protestant that meant a budget cut, so to speak, and it was thus a strategic aim in several wars to alter the denomination of the population in order to raise taxes. I think people here sometimes forget realpolitik that had been associated with religion because today it isn't anymore. I mean way back when the Vatican had its own army and waged wars.

It's been a busy day and haven't had time to read all the responses.  Maybe I'll be back later. 

And why would that be Lula?  Would they be bitter for just no reason?  Hmmmm?  Would RCC bloodshed have anything to do with this? 

No Lula, show me where he said the RCC would never fail.  Show me in scripture!   Don't give me a RCC encylopedia, give me a scripture using Jesus' own words. 

KFC posts:

As we read through the Gospels, we read that Christ established a Church founded upon the Twelve Apostles with Peter as its earthly head. Jesus said, "And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build My Chruch, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven." St.Matt. 16: 18-19.   

Later, just before Christ ascended into Heaven He went to His Apostles....

"and Jesus came and said to them, "All power is given to Me  in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded, and behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world." St.Matt. 28: 18-20.  

I've provided Scripture that shows Christ established a Church and said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it and that He would be with it all days till the end. Now there has been only one Church that has been in existence all days since Christ and that is the One, Holy, catholic and Apostolic Church.

If the Catholic Church failed then the gates of Hell prevailed against Christ's Church and that would make Christ not keeping His word and we know that Christ can not deceive or be deceived.

No Lula.  There is NO scripture that says the church in Matthew 16 is the RCC. 

The word church in Greek is "Ecclesia"  which means "called out ones." 

It has nothing to do with the RCC.  Church is believers.  People.  It's NOT denomination.  And Christ is right on.  The church is still here made up of believers in many denominations.  The church was started in Acts 2 with Pentecost made up of Jewish Believers ONLY.  That was the beginning of the church.  AND it wasn't even in Rome.  It was in Jerusalem! 

In the 4th Century starting with Constantine is the start of the RCC.  Not with Peter.  They went backwards later and Claimed Peter as their first leader but that doesn't make it true. 

So, no you did not show me in scripture where Christ is talking about the RCC. 

There's no doubt that the Puritans were anti-Catholic and wanted to set up a new world where the government-religion tyranny would not be a reality thus setting the stage for our Constitution. 

You mention that it wasn't until 1865 that the Catholics were allowed to vote.  I'd have to check on that but will take your word for it now.   Funny tho, that you didn't mention that Protestantism didn't become even legal in France until 1598.  So of course with this background the Protestants's needed a place to feel safe.  So why did the Catholics follow them even to the New World?  They had France and most, if not all of Europe. 

That was after (1572) when the French Protestants (Huguenots) were slaughtered on St. Bartholemew's Day.  Ten thousand Protestants died on that day and not until the Edict of Nantes in 1598 did Protestantism become legal. 

So which is worse?  Not being able to vote cuz you're Catholic in the early days of our country or being massacred because you're Protestant, using a Saint's holiday no less? 

Which is worse being a Catholic in a Protestant New World or being an outlawed (and hunted down) Protestant in France in 1572? 

I couldn't find anything on this Lula.  Can you furnish a link?   I did find a timeline from the ACLU's website on voting in America.  Here's a sampling but nothing on what you said and it wasn't just the Catholics barred from voting in the early days as you make it seem.  :

And let's not forget that the wealthiest man who signed the Declaration was a Catholic.  His name was Charles Carroll.  Here's the link for the timeline:  http://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/voting-rights-act-timeline

Why would a Jew create the Catholic Church? How could a Jew create the Catholic Church?