I agree with everything you’ve said about the Catholic confessional states. Democracy has the seeds of it own destruction inside it (it’s fine if it is founded upon a rigourous morality from which it never departs. Trouble is, that morality is almost always forgotten).One more things on the topic of crowns and humility.
I think modern man tends to look at all kings as prideful and lacking humility - cruel and inhuman - usurping the honor due to God alone and squashig the “rights of man”. It’s sort of the ingrained notion of moarchies that we’ve all been raised in - since we all probably live in nation states that have had revolutions against this or that “crown”.
I would suggest using King Louis IX of France (St. Louis) as an exemplary example of an earthly King. One who was both King and servant…here’s a quote from the online Cathoic Encyclopedia article on him: “He was renowned for his charity. The peace and blessings of the realm come to us through the poor he would say. Beggars were fed from his table, he ate their leavings, washed their feet, ministered to the wants of the lepers, and daily fed over one hundred poor. He founded many hospitals and houses: the House of the Felles-Dieu for reformed prostitutes; the Quinze-Vingt for 300 blind men (1254), hospitals at Pontoise, Vernon, Compiégne.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09368a.htm
Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad
We’re not without our common ground, me and you.I agree with everything you’ve said about the Catholic confessional states. Democracy has the seeds of it own destruction inside it (it’s fine if it is founded upon a rigourous morality from which it never departs. Trouble is, that morality is almost always forgotten).
Point taken. I’d only say that the pope is the earthly head of God’s kingdom on earth - the Church. And the three-fold mission of the Church (and hence the pope) is to sactify, teach, and govern - reflecting the reality of Christ - He is priest, prophet and king. His Church carries on this mission…His mission. The saga continues.IIn the above example, I cannot forbear to point out that Saint Louis was a king, not a priest and not the Vicar of Christ. He was “supposed” to wear a crown.
I agree that would be a problem, if that was what Pope Paul and his successors intended. I don’t think it was and I think they’ve shown that since. I remember Pope John Paul II shaking his finger in the face of a leftist priest in the Nicaraguan government and thundering “Silencio!” at the Sandinista controlled crowd when they attempted to shout him down when he visited there. I don’t think they’re afraid to say what they think, though they do seem reluctant to excommunicate the Pelossi et al. Maybe they’re being merciful and as I hope for mercy, perhaps I should not comment on that, but it seems to me that they could be a little more forceful in poking the sheep with the pastoral staff (did you know a bishops crosier used to have a sharp point, symbolic of his need to protect AND occasionally prick the flock?).My only concern is that in laying down the tiara, the right of God to govern through His Church was also “laid down” - even if only symbolically. Because in the end, that right is not ours - or the pope’s - to lay down.
Just something to think about.
Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad
There was a post on the tiara on Fr Z’s blog recently. The tiara which was auctioned, and is now at the Shrine, was a far more recent construct, it certainly wasn’t the ‘original’.I saw it on display at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington DC during last January’s March for Life.
Besides, there are other tiaras in storage, and a new one could also be made.
Wow - never heard of that. I’m trying to picture it - with a little difficulty since it doesn’t fit PJP2’s personality.…I remember Pope John Paul II shaking his finger in the face of a leftist priest in the Nicaraguan government and thundering “Silencio!” at the Sandinista controlled crowd when they attempted to shout him down when he visited there.
You shouldn’t feel bad about that. Remember - the disciplinary actions are themselves merciful. Even excommunication…which is merciful to both the one publicly excomunnicated (letting them know full well the seriousness of their situation, hence inviting them back to repentance and conversion) and the faithful in general (communicating with clarity and authority the seriousness of whatever transgression is being committed by the individual excommuunicated).…I don’t think they’re afraid to say what they think, though they do seem reluctant to excommunicate the Pelossi et al. Maybe they’re being merciful and as I hope for mercy, perhaps I should not comment on that, but it seems to me that they could be a little more forceful in poking the sheep with the pastoral staff…
Didn’t know that - another example of how the Catholic faith is the great Religion of the both/and (as opposed to the either/or).…(did you know a bishops crosier used to have a sharp point, symbolic of his need to protect AND occasionally prick the flock?).
More specifically from about the 700’s to the 1200’s, Charlemagne and Avingon. In this period you can see how the Church rose up to secular power as a king maker and then lost that power. A good college level European history course including the Middle Ages should give you that info.The “ancient” past?
Why is being virtually ignored and regarded as completely irrelevant by politicians and the State better? Has it led to government policies more in accord with Natural Law? Has it led to better, more godly societies?More specifically from about the 700’s to the 1200’s, Charlemagne and Avingon. In this period you can see how the Church rose up to secular power as a king maker and then lost that power. A good college level European history course including the Middle Ages should give you that info.
Thats what I meant by how the Church used to be involved in politics and is now in a better way.
You might also find interest in study of Jefferson’s theories on development of democracy.
Peace.
No need to be snide - but thanks for clearing that up. I’d have neve guessed you were going back so far. We’re talking about the laying down of the tiara, which occured in the last several decades - and the changing of the “approach” of the Church to society which occured in the same time frame (post Vatican II).More specifically from about the 700’s to the 1200’s, Charlemagne and Avingon. In this period you can see how the Church rose up to secular power as a king maker and then lost that power. A good college level European history course including the Middle Ages should give you that info.
Okay. But, eh, given that he was a mason, would it not be good to read the Catholic counter to espoused Jeffersonian/masonic ideals? I would suggest Pope Leo XII’s Libertas for starters.You might also find interest in study of Jefferson’s theories on development of democracy.
I wasn’t being snide my friend. I wanted to clarify. Not resume any discord between us. You misunderstood my intention. Thats all.No need to be snide - but thanks for clearing that up. I’d have neve guessed you were going back so far. We’re talking about the laying down of the tiara, which occured in the last several decades - and the changing of the “approach” of the Church to society which occured in the same time frame (post Vatican II).
I see it as intertwined with the happenings in the past period that I mentioned. Also with the orthodox interpretation of seperation of Church and state.This was the pope’s (and the Church’s) response to the “modern era” - the era of the modern republic that has cast off the authority of the Church…It was not a response to the problems or woes of the 700-1200s for crying out loud.
Ah, good question. I think it’s better because it more closely emulates the actions and beatitude of Christ while on earth. Of course we don’t have the retrospective view for posterity. We can only go on what has happened before and strive to avoid the same mistakes. History unheeded repeats itself.And either way you want to look at it - from whetever era you choose - how is today’s situation and approach “better”? How does it win more souls for the Lord?
Yes of course. Though Jefferson was an athiest (we hope he didn’t die one) he still had some genious points on democracy such as the seperation of Church and state. You must realize he derived these theories by his study of the Church, Jewdaism and Islam so of course its his syncrenistic interpretation. There is never the less much good within the world outside of the Church which we can find. It can only be by the grace of God. We should not allow any prejudice cause us to fail to embrace truth where ever it is. Though Jeffersons doctrine of seperation is twisted to pieces by our modern culture since he wrote it its still worth a read to discover his true intention with it. After all its where we live.Okay. But, eh, given that he was a mason, would it not be good to read the Catholic counter to espoused Jeffersonian/masonic ideals? I would suggest Pope Leo XII’s Libertas for starters.
My apologies.I wasn’t being snide my friend. I wanted to clarify. Not resume any discord between us. You misunderstood my intention. Thats all.
I not sure there is a clear cut “orthodox” interpretation of seperation of Church and state. I think it used to be pretty clear cut - at least with some pretty clear guidelines, but that has become somewhat confused with and since Vatican II. Time will tell when the dust from the current storm passes where it is. I’m not so sure what we take for granted as a blessing is merely a prudential toleration of a bad situation.I see it as intertwined with the happenings in the past period that I mentioned. Also with the orthodox interpretation of seperation of Church and state.
I disagree. We have good examples and bad examples. If you were raised in the US, you kind of take as a given that it was horrible - it’s the doctrine of the state that no one dare question…but dare to step outside the box and you might get a different viewpoint.Its obvious from history that the Church was not a good secular ruler.
The confessionally Catholic state isn’t about forcing conversions - it’s more defence than offense. Protecting the innocent - protecting souls from the very real spiritual dangers of heresy, apostasy and schism - is a Christian duty of us individually - and collectively as a state (or should be anyway).Ah, good question. I think it’s better because it more closely emulates the actions and beatitude of Christ while on earth…Jesus never forced anyone to follow Him. He endowed us with free will from our creation.
Individually, I agree. And the Church by no means should be engaged in forced conversion. But if by my own free will I harm others spiritually - either by openly and freely spreading heresy and whatnot - or from assuming a position of power and passing laws that violate God’s law (such as abortion, etc.) - then I not only harm myself, I harm others…I harm society. And since the primary duty of society is to protect its citizens…we have a dilema on our hands.I for one am one that finds it in my own best interest to follow Him…If I or a government fails to shun evil then we fail, not the Church by not controlling us in the first place. The Church remains there with the open arms of Christ ready for us to come home.
This is the great experiment we are living through - but I think the last few centiries - the last especially - we see that left to its own devices without the societal and structual protection of HMC, society will descend to deeper and deeper levels of depravity, and indeed eventualy totalitarianism will rear its head. Nothing is more intolerant of Christ’s truth than institutionalized tolerance of anything and everything.…But for those who choose to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the stalwart Moral Pillar and Foundation of all truth then the rewards are great even in this world.
Whatever is good outside the Church can only also be found in the Church. Only the true is good - and we have the “fullnes of truth”. That’s why I think it’s important to have a good grasp on what the Church has officially said and taught down through the centuries regarding this very topic…in addition to more recent documents…just to make sure we understand the current documents in accord with what has gone before.…There is never the less much good within the world outside of the Church which we can find.
Libertas gets very,* very* interesting starting at about paragraph 15. Let me know what you think.…Thanks for that link above. I will try and get to it but have to run for now.