Separation of Church and State: Good or Bad?

[Lycorth]

Lycorth, you are a charitable person, to take so much time to tease apart the errors of "portorica.’ Can’t even spell Puerto.

Thank you; it is frustrating work. Might as well bash my head against a brick wall.

But, I know other people read, even if they do not comment. It is important to do one’s best to counter errors, to speak the truth and be a light unto it.

If you feel that medieval times were near perfect examples of Jesus teachings, then that explains quite a bit.

Yes, it explains that I have chosen to defy my social brainwashing and dare to question the secularists.

It says a lot that you choose not to.

The rich resources you mention are generally examples of the political relationships and do little to explain the actual situations experienced by most of the inhabitants of Europe.

That is a lie. Carroll, Belloc, and Pernoud write extensively about what all of Europe and all Europeans experienced, not just about political relationships. If you had actually read the works I’ve cited, you’d know that.

If you refuse to read them, then please do not comment on them.

To put it into a modern analogy, the writings you mention are akin to writings saying that the US economy is in recovery . When in med times it is pointed out the relationships between the 'civilized and titled, it ignores the plight of the common man. Similarly today the profitability of Wall Street is in stark contrast to the real unemployment rate that is in the high teens.

Obfuscation. The writings I’ve mentioned are by serious Catholic scholars who understand their subject material inside and out. Why must you make up bald-faced lies? What is your real purpose here?

To give examples of only what is happening to the “best and the brightest” ignores what happened in the past and is happening to the most.

Since I have never stated anything of the sort, I must conclude that you are attempting to deliberately misconstrue the issue. If you are truly a Catholic, I implore you to cease; if you are not, consider yourself outed.

To equate the actions of the church in the middle ages or up to the most recent past with what Jesus taught ignores both the actions of the church and what Jesus taught. Why do you think the term “lack of impeccability” came into usage?

More obfuscation. The very Faith you take for granted (assuming you are even a legitimate Catholic) was established by a Church that enjoyed its rightful place as the shepherd and guide of temporal authorities. Western civilization as a whole, also taken for granted, is the pure product of the Church’s hard work to preserve and restore civilization after the fall of the Roman Empire.

It is a lamentable thing that Catholics today take so much for granted.

What you appear to have an inability to do is to separate the human actions of the members of the clergy with the word of God. That is why the church expressly reserves infallibility to matters of morals and doctrine.

The Church does not reserve anything; God bestows the gift of infallibility and defines its limits, not the Church. You seem to misunderstand that the Church obeys God, not dictates anything of her own accord.

That is why some popes could live like kings and still be shepherds.

The popes were the judges of kings, the only effective check and balance against temporal authority that has ever existed. But I suppose you prefer popes and the Church to be subject to temporal, secular authorities. Little wonder the Church is so hamstrung as it is today.

Separation of Church and State is a good thing. It keeps the government from influencing the Church. However, the Church is free to influence the government. That is not a violation of the separation of Church and State idea that is present in our law and governmental systems.

Separation of Church and state is a horrible thing. The government today influences the Church to a degree never before heard of in Western civilization. If the Church was free to influence the government, we’d have governments which obey Church teachings and submit to Church guidance. We have nothing of the sort today, proving utterly false the assumption that a secular society protects the Church or is more amenable to Church guidance than a society where the Church has legal protection and support.

Actually show me one post that has a factual error.

I’ve been doing it all along. That you refuse to take correction is not our fault.

You have it right. The church can do more when it has moral authority then with temporal authority.

The Church never had temporal authority - what it had was temporal influence; popes from the earliest times knew they could not handle the burdens of temporal government. That is why they chose merely to invest temporal rulers with their crowns rather than assume all their duties. The Church’s moral authority, however, cannot be enforced without temporal sanction and obedience, without cooperation from the government as well as the citizenry. This right and natural relationship has been broken and as such, society and Church both suffer.

Unless this natural bond is restored, society will continue to suffer and the Church will be further marginalized until her voice is no longer heard. It is barely audible today.

 

[portarica]

Thank you; it is frustrating work. Might as well bash my head against a brick wall…
.

…The Church never had temporal authority - what it had was temporal influence; popes from the earliest times knew they could not handle the burdens of temporal government. That is why they chose merely to invest temporal rulers with their crowns rather than assume all their duties. The Church’s moral authority, however, cannot be enforced without temporal sanction and obedience, without cooperation from the government as well as the citizenry. This right and natural relationship has been broken and as such, society and Church both suffer.

Unless this natural bond is restored, society will continue to suffer and the Church will be further marginalized until her voice is no longer heard. It is barely audible today.

You feel that ad hominem attacks somehow make your argument stronger. Perhaps another tact to take would be to actually check your facts.

To just address your quote above it might be useful to go to : www.newadvent.org/cathen/14257a.htm

Read about the Papal states , as someone who questions the faith of others, you should at least make the effort to check my facts before you slander someone.

Have some confidence in your faith, I can take your barbs because I know my faith pretty well, worts and all. My faith is first in Jesus and would be there even if I wasn’t born catholic.

As to the middle ages, let me give you some insight, we are not going back there. It was horrible compared to now.

Peace

 

[Lycorth]

You feel that ad hominem attacks somehow make your argument stronger. Perhaps another tact to take would be to actually check your facts.

I say the same to you.

To just address your quote above it might be useful to go to : www.newadvent.org/cathen/14257a.htm

I was in error to neglect to specify that the popes have always had temporal authority over their own states. But that is it - their own home, not the whole of Europe, as the implication is rampant across this thread.

Read about the Papal states , as someone who questions the faith of others, you should at least make the effort to check my facts before you slander someone.

As someone who refuses to even honestly treat the writings of others, I will question anything that sends up a red flag to me. If you don’t care for the comparison, don’t invite it.

Have some confidence in your faith, I can take your barbs because I know my faith pretty well, worts and all. My faith is first in Jesus and would be there even if I wasn’t born catholic.

My confidence is my faith isn’t in question. Why you are bothering to imply that is it is part and parcel of what makes me wonder about your intentions here.

As to the middle ages, let me give you some insight, we are not going back there. It was horrible compared to now.

Let me give *you *some insight - you are more wrong than you can imagine.

 

[portarica]

Lycorth:" someone who refuses to even honestly treat the writings of others, I will question anything that sends up a red flag to me. If you don’t care for the comparison, don’t invite it."

Do you think I didn’t consider what you posted?

You have a tendency to post like this:

Here are a bunch of books: read them and if you didn’t read them then your knowledge is faulty.

That isn’t a valid argument unless your sources directly contradict what I have posted. Since there is ample evidence of infanticide in Europe throughout the time in question, any argument that disputes that fact is spurious . Just as you posted that there were no Papal States and were forced to back track.

There are many books written on the history of the middle ages that leave out the stories about the majority of the people lived in those times. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, just because all the sociological situations are not mentioned in a book doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

As to my comment about the confidence you have in your faith , I should have left that out.Sorry.

But in a general sense I feel a sense of anger directed toward anybody who explores their faith deeply and openly.

And I wonder where that comes from. If you believe that the church is everything it says it is, then you have nothing to fear.

If you have no fear about your faith and whether the church says this or that has no critical bearing on your faith you might be confident.

But if you feel that the church’s authority is based on what it says and you wonder about some things it has said , then that might be a quandary.If that is the case remember the church always leaves itself an out so no worries there either.

So if you are in any of those 3 situations be confident, don’t base your faith on it having to meet a proscribed series of events laid out in a particular linear order.

So don’t attack people and question their catholicism because they are comfortable questioning their own catholicism.

I remain catholic despite knowing too much about the church. It would be much easier on me to be a blissfully ignorant catholic than be a knowing catholic.

Peace

 

[EnchantedEve]

You have it right. The church can do more when it has moral authority then with temporal authority.

Peace

You realize that this sentence is almost word for word condemned in Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors?

“in the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.” -Condemned(No. 77)

“the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.” -Condemned (No. 55)

“every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” (No. 15) and that “it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.” - Both Condemned (No. 78)

**" The abolition of the temporal power of which the Apostolic See is possessed would contribute in the greatest degree to the liberty and prosperity of the Church" -Condemned
(No. 76) **

“Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.”- Condemned (No. 79)

 

[EnchantedEve]

But when a pope isn’t thinking of his alliances with Austria vs. the former Papal states, but just has to worry about the Vatican, He can devote more time to doing God’s wishes and not worry about his bully pulpit being shutdown or watered down by any undue outside political influence.

I am, again, utterly appalled at everything I have read above. The sentiments sound a great deal like protestant judgementalist and miserablism.

I cannot cite a particular item in these posts which is in error since the entirety of the arguments is errnoneous. Did you read any of my links on the Medieval era?

If one does not take Catholic authors like Belloc or Chesterton seriously, why not secular scholarly works? Dahmus’ A History of the Middle Ages will reveal much, along with Cahill’s Mysteries of the Middle Ages and White’s Medieval Technology and Social Change. A less postive view is Manchester’s A World Lit Only By Fire, but it still does not paint the picture of Medieval era these posts do. I read little of infanticide in any of these works.

One cannot make claims about a historical era and not cite sources to back those claims. Nothing posted here has even pretended to cite a source, merely speaking on personal authority with no pretense of scholarship. If one knows “too much” about the Church, than we certainly are not sharing the wealth with others. The statements above are of such nature that they demand substantiation, and telling others to Google it is no better than being told to read a pile of books.

I did Google it, by the way, and mentions of infanticide (as if that has suddenly changed) in Wikipedia mention it primarily in the Dark Ages, not the Medieval era (13th/14th century to late 1500’s, around 300 years). DeathReference.com notes the practice was not tolerated by the Church or the State, and that practice was common to the 1800’s, well after the Medieval era. The same site said in 1997 there were over 700 infanticides (age 6 and under) NOT including abortion in the United States. My, how the Churchless state has improved. Other sites show how St. Justin Martyr, St. Clement of Alexandria and the Didache all condemned the practice as early as the 150’s. Under the Church, Constantine, Justinian and Theodosus all enacted statues against the practice, one which I will point out was commonplace and accepted previously, especially under the Roman lex familiorum which stated the Paterfamilias had the right to kill his own children AT ANY AGE. The Church changed this, no one else. These laws were extended and observed by Charlemagne in all Imperial lands. during the Medieval era.

I will confess to being a little suprised about the statement the Church held no temporal power. Absolutely it did, and reading Andrieux and Fitton’s Daily Life in Papal Rome in the 18th Century will show life was not too horrible in that land. Over 75% of the populace was voluntarily unemployed, since there were so many monasteries, convents and churches to care for their daily needs. Rough. Sandra Benjamin’s Sicily speaks of the hardships it caused when the monasteries were secularized by the Kingdom of Italy in Sicily. The abolition and sale of the commons, the open land tended by religious order for common use, caused numerous troubles, since people no longer had access to food. It also often cut off the poor’s only access to schools, health care, and help. Do not take our word for it. Read the scholarly works. You want me to cite more here I will. The mountain of evidence against the claims of the Medieval era is overwhelming. You want facts, I got them.

Portarica, I am confident you must be strong in your Faith, if you believe what you believe and still practice the Faith. God’s Blessings to you. However, this does not change the fact that the information cited above is erroneous, ahistorical, and misleading regarding the nature of the Church and her power. Please show me something solid that the Medieval era was truly *that *horrible compared to now. Sure, life was uncomfortable. Without the new technology, medical advancements, development of markets, etc. much of the comfort and security the modern era has enjoyed would not have occured then, of course. The Church nor the State could no more change that than you or I could have then, and I think you know that. I have yet to see evidence that Church was not utterly true and strong in Her commitment to the Holy Gospel, the evangelical virtues, or the service of the faithful, simply absent. Certainly, the Church had corrupt men and excess, but this did not effect the overall mission of the Church, which you appear to claim. The onus would be to show that the Church did not live up to Her call, and I have yet to see that. I have shown my evidence, what of you?

All God’s strength to you, my friend!

 

[portarica]

You realize that this sentence is almost word for word condemned in Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors?

“in the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.” -Condemned(No. 77)

“the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.” -Condemned (No. 55)

“every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” (No. 15) and that “it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.” - Both Condemned (No. 78)

**" The abolition of the temporal power of which the Apostolic See is possessed would contribute in the greatest degree to the liberty and prosperity of the Church" -Condemned
(No. 76) **

“Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.”- Condemned (No. 79)

Port. “You have it right. The church can do more when it has moral authority then with temporal authority.”

Lycoth, first show how word for word there is any match up with the quotes you put forth.

Your quotes have no reference to the quality or quantity of the church’s work , which is what my post says.

Your quotes only refer to PIX 's references to his views on the Pope losing the temporal and spiritual control of the nations of Europe.

Take his errors and see how they apply to say the US which was primarily founded by leaders who were protestants and Masons , if the founding fathers had established a state church, it was unlikely to be catholic and under the wording of your quote catholics probably wouldn’t be in charge and would be excluded by the reasoning of PIX .

Also the errors listed by PIX run contrary to the reconciliation between the RCC and the Jewish faith. Or do you think JP2’s and B16’s efforts in that direction are in error as well?

The errors listed by PIX actually add support to the argument that the church can do more with moral authority than with temporal authority, they are evidence that a man was trying to hold on to a temporal power through authority instead of trying to grow the faith through evidence and example of Jesus’ teachings at work. Why didn’t PIX have support from the populous of Italy for maintaining control over more territory? Why weren’t there riots in the streets of Rome for support of PIX?

And error 76 " The abolition of the temporal power of which the Apostolic See is possessed would contribute in the greatest degree to the liberty and prosperity of the Church"

This is from a church that professes to be the deposit of the faith and it fears losing temporal power to the greatest degree?

The church hasn’t exactly fallen on its back since PIX and if we look at the success as a pontiff that JP2 enjoyed it wasn’t because he controlled more temporal assets, it was because his message about the church had not just the wisdom that Jesus taught, but the credibility and strength of character that JP2 brought to the position.

It wasn’t just JP2’s preaching to the choir or temporal subjects that made him a good pope it also was his ability to cross political and sociological borders with his message of faith in Jesus.

Peace

 

[portarica]

I am, again, utterly appalled at everything I have read above. The sentiments sound a great deal like protestant judgementalist and miserablism.

I cannot cite a particular item in these posts which is in error since the entirety of the arguments is errnoneous. Did you read any of my links on the Medieval era?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Huh?, you can’t find a particular error since the whole thing is erroneous?

And your links, they are not links if you just mention a bunch of books. Probably you can’t actually cite an error in my posts because you can’t supply a specific link that refutes what I posted.
++++++++++++++++++

Enchan: " If one does not take Catholic authors like Belloc or Chesterton seriously, why not secular scholarly works? Dahmus’ A History of the Middle Ages will reveal much, along with Cahill’s Mysteries of the Middle Ages and White’s Medieval Technology and Social Change. A less postive view is Manchester’s A World Lit Only By Fire, but it still does not paint the picture of Medieval era these posts do. I read little of infanticide in any of these works."

Who said I don’t take them seriously, I acknowledge that good things did happen during the middle ages, but that doesn’t override the opinion I have that the church is better off being separated from the state.

++++++++++

Ench:"One cannot make claims about a historical era and not cite sources to back those claims. Nothing posted here has even pretended to cite a source, merely speaking on personal authority with no pretense of scholarship. If one knows “too much” about the Church, than we certainly are not sharing the wealth with others. The statements above are of such nature that they demand substantiation, and telling others to Google it is no better than being told to read a pile of books.

To discuss in specifics what the church has done to harm her congregation serves no purpose.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ench:" I did Google it, by the way, and mentions of infanticide (as if that has suddenly changed) in Wikipedia mention it primarily in the Dark Ages, not the Medieval era (13th/14th century to late 1500’s, around 300 years). DeathReference.com notes the practice was not tolerated by the Church or the State, and that practice was common to the 1800’s, well after the Medieval era. The same site said in 1997 there were over 700 infanticides (age 6 and under) NOT including abortion in the United States. My, how the Churchless state has improved. Other sites show how St. Justin Martyr, St. Clement of Alexandria and the Didache all condemned the practice as early as the 150’s. Under the Church, Constantine, Justinian and Theodosus all enacted statues against the practice, one which I will point out was commonplace and accepted previously, especially under the Roman lex familiorum which stated the Paterfamilias had the right to kill his own children AT ANY AGE. The Church changed this, no one else. These laws were extended and observed by Charlemagne in all Imperial lands. during the Medieval era."

that what I posted , see when you take a second to google infanticide you do come up with the cites, when you ask me to read a bunch of books that’s OK (apparently you don’t want a reply until June)

+++++++++++++++++++

Ench:“I will confess to being a little suprised about the statement the Church held no temporal power. Absolutely it did, and reading Andrieux and Fitton’s Daily Life in Papal Rome in the 18th Century will show life was not too horrible in that land. Over 75% of the populace was voluntarily unemployed, since there were so many monasteries, convents and churches to care for their daily needs. Rough…”

The statement about a lack of temporal power was Lyth’s
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Ench:“have yet to see evidence that Church was not utterly true and strong in Her commitment to the Holy Gospel, the evangelical virtues, or the service of the faithful, simply absent. Certainly, the Church had corrupt men and excess, but this did not effect the overall mission of the Church, which you appear to claim. The onus would be to show that the Church did not live up to Her call, and I have yet to see that. I have shown my evidence, what of you?”

Do you think any kids committed suicide because of the way the church has handled some issues? Do you think or believe no mothers have wept for the pain the church inflicted upon them and their families? Do you think that the most recent drop off in vocations has not been impacted by the actions of the corrupt that you mention?

To make blanket statements like the actions of corrupt men and men of excess(your words) do not affect the overall mission of the church is patently false. The mission of the church is universal in application, actions that discourage even one person from following the teachings of Jesus affect that mission.
++++++++++++++

All God’s strength to you, my friend!

And to you as well.

Peace

 

[JSSebastianoP]

It was almost perfect and utterly spiritual; even secular scholars tend to refer to the Medieval age as the “Age of Faith” (Morris Bishop for one) - that is no accident. As for Fascism, do you know that aside from Nazi Germany and the Lapua Movement in Finland, all other Fascist movements of the 20th century were Catholic? I suggest you do a little research into Engelbert Dolfuss of Austria, Francisco Franco of Spain, and Antonio de Oliveria Salazar of Portugal; Mussolini’s Catholicism can be considered nominal at best but the bulk of the Italian state’s government and policy were pro-Catholic. I am willing to bet that you didn’t know that the Fascist Italian government helped form the modern papal states in a successful effort to end the strife between the Vatican and the Italian crown (and nearly obliterated the Mafia in Sicily), that Dolfuss and Salazar were meticulous in their attempts to implement the teachings of *Rerum Novarum *and Quadragesimo Anno into public life, and were it not for Franco’s defense of the clergy, the Marxists would have destroyed the Church in Spain. Truth is stranger than fiction; name a single secular government that has done a fraction as much in defense and support of the Church and its teachings.

“Fascism” is not a pejorative to me.

I love this paragraph (and everything else you’ve said). I would just like to make one minor revision that Nazism, while “teamed-up” with fascism was actually an off-shoot of Marxism.

 

[EnchantedEve]

I mean I actually posted links on the Medieval era from an organization called Tradition in Action. I guess you must not have read them since you did not know I posted it!

I am astonished however, that you feel that mentioning specifics when making such significant claims about this specific period of time is unneccesary. How can one justify such views without evidence or facts? What are you showing to support your argument? Personal testimony? Good ol’ American gut feeling?

Portarica: “To discuss in specifics what the church has done to harm her congregation serves no purpose.”

You mean, other than to validate an argument.

Portarica: "Who said I don’t take them seriously, I acknowledge that good things did happen during the middle ages, but that doesn’t override the opinion I have that the church is better off being separated from the state. "

Again, how can you come to such views with no evidence to back it up?

Portarica: “that what I posted , see when you take a second to google infanticide you do come up with the cites, when you ask me to read a bunch of books that’s OK (apparently you don’t want a reply until June)”

The problem with internet sources is that they rarely cite from wence they draw their knowledge. Even the arguments I brought from these sites to disagree with your statements on infanticide have no basis other than our faith in the sites’ integrity. That is why books and scholars are far preferable, since they normally draw from primary sources, and are verifiable.

I undertand the statements were Lycorth’s on the temporal power the Church, which is why I said I was suprised. However, my counter-information was to show that your argument, that temporal power was a negative, did not apply in all cases and certainly not to the subjects of that realm.

Portarica: “Do you think any kids committed suicide because of the way the church has handled some issues? Do you think or believe no mothers have wept for the pain the church inflicted upon them and their families? Do you think that the most recent drop off in vocations has not been impacted by the actions of the corrupt that you mention?”

Non-sequitor. Porta, I still do not follow your line of reasoning. The corruption of the Medieval era caused a drop off in vocations now, or corruption in the modern era? What pain has the Church inflicted? What are you speaking of?

If you mean Medieval, historical sources indicate no shortage of clergy in the Medieval times, actually the contrary. If in the modern, this would indicate that the Church is still corrupt and therefore secularization has not helped the Church at all. Which can it be?

Portarica: “To make blanket statements like the actions of corrupt men and men of excess(your words) do not affect the overall mission of the church is patently false. The mission of the church is universal in application, actions that discourage even one person from following the teachings of Jesus affect that mission.”

While theoretically true, the contrary blanket argument, that the Church is therefore not serving Her mission, would be equally unsatisfactory.

One cannot have it both ways. If the Church was corrupt at the time it was in harmony with the State, and man has not changed, the Church would be the same and secularization would change nothing. If the Church was corrupt and man has changed, than secularization was unnecessary.

The basic argument you would have to make is that the Church was corrupt at the time, men have not changed, yet somehow secularization (the rejection of God in the public sphere) created a Providential change in the human environment which made the Church and state better off. The fact that negative things occurred in the Middle Ages does not make the modern era ipso facto better. You would have to prove that the Church failed at Her mission then but that somehow after being disassociated from the state became stronger and more influential in fulfilling Her calling.

Of course, the other argument in that seperation of Church and state changed mankind for the better, in toto and without exception, since “even one person” would matter, and that the Church is no longer corrupt. Again, how so?

I believe the facts today say otherwise. The phenomenal rise in divorce, abortion and contraception, even among Catholics, would indicate things have not improved. The decline in vocations is another you cited. The spectatcular drop in Mass attendance in every nation on earth further enhances the argument.

None of the above were significant problems in non-secular societies.

Based on what premise has the modern world improved? What index has been made matter? Our material wellness? Our tolerance for error? Our tolerance for sin? Where are we better off than in the Medieval era?

Please clarify you position. Has the Church improved or not, and what changed at secularization to make this happen?

In my prayers.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Some articles if interest:

traditioninaction.org/His…Feudalism.html

traditioninaction.org/Org…Feudalism.html

traditioninaction.org/His…yths1500s.html

(These are the ones I poster earlier).

 

[Lycorth]

Do you think I didn’t consider what you posted?

You have a tendency to post like this:

Here are a bunch of books: read them and if you didn’t read them then your knowledge is faulty.

It’s called education; you refuse to educate yourself, therefore your knowledge is faulty.

That isn’t a valid argument unless your sources directly contradict what I have posted.

If you availed yourself of my sources, you would see they directly contradict your claims completely.

Since there is ample evidence of infanticide in Europe throughout the time in question, any argument that disputes that fact is spurious .

There is no such evidence and you have failed to produce any. Enchanted Eve has even used the almighty Google to prove them wrong.

Just as you posted that there were no Papal States and were forced to back track.

Get over yourself. I was not “forced” back to track and I never claimed there were no Papal States. I however claimed that the Church did not control all temporal authorities, and you know full well that was my intent. Please stop making up lies about me; you’re not going to “get my goat” or provoke me into a fight.

There are many books written on the history of the middle ages that leave out the stories about the majority of the people lived in those times. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, just because all the sociological situations are not mentioned in a book doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

I avoid such books; my sources treat the whole of the Middle Ages and what happened to all strata of society. Again, if you would bother to avail yourself of them, you would understand.

As to my comment about the confidence you have in your faith , I should have left that out.Sorry.

Yet I’m the one who attacks ad homimen?

No matter - I forgive you and hereby forget the incident, even though you keep on bringing the matter up later on in your post. Why, I do not know.

But in a general sense I feel a sense of anger directed toward anybody who explores their faith deeply and openly.

How far out of left field is that coming from?

The facts are that I am the one exploring my faith deeply and daring to question the horrible lies told about the Medieval Church. You are not exploring anything but rather fighting tooth and nail to support modernist lies about the Church, the era in which the Church was the sole spiritual shepherd of the world (the Medieval era), and not just refusing to examine my sources but outright castigating them without so much as the slightest examination. I’m sorry, but that is not exploring your faith.

And I wonder where that comes from. If you believe that the church is everything it says it is, then you have nothing to fear.

You are not making sense. I am not afraid of anything, merely defending the truth about the Church.

I say to you that if the Church is everything you think it is, then you have nothing to fear about an honest study and treatment of the same Church that existed during the Medieval age and saved Western civilization.

If you have no fear about your faith and whether the church says this or that has no critical bearing on your faith you might be confident.

Now you’re truly lost me.

But if you feel that the church’s authority is based on what it says and you wonder about some things it has said , then that might be a quandary.If that is the case remember the church always leaves itself an out so no worries there either.

I said earlier that the Church’s authority comes directly from God and not itself. Why do you insist on misrepresenting me?

The Church doesn’t leave itself an “out”. It has no need to. What are you on about?

So if you are in any of those 3 situations be confident, don’t base your faith on it having to meet a proscribed series of events laid out in a particular linear order.

I get the impression you’re projecting your own fears onto me. Please cease and desist.

So don’t attack people and question their catholicism because they are comfortable questioning their own catholicism.

You are not questioning Catholicism, you are attacking it. If you want to question something so badly, question the weakness of the modern Church and question where our entire civilization came from. Don’t attack what gave us civilization.

 

[Lycorth]

And error 76 " The abolition of the temporal power of which the Apostolic See is possessed would contribute in the greatest degree to the liberty and prosperity of the Church"

This is from a church that professes to be the deposit of the faith and it fears losing temporal power to the greatest degree?

Yes, and it is perfectly accurate. All one needs to do is behold how little influence and authority the Church has today to see how true this is. There is an conflict of interests between secular powers and the Church, and common sense tells us that if secular powers can take away the Church’s safety, secular powers will see to the marginalizing of the Church.

This is what is happening today.

The church hasn’t exactly fallen on its back since PIX and if we look at the success as a pontiff that JP2 enjoyed it wasn’t because he controlled more temporal assets, it was because his message about the church had not just the wisdom that Jesus taught, but the credibility and strength of character that JP2 brought to the position.

It wasn’t just JP2’s preaching to the choir or temporal subjects that made him a good pope it also was his ability to cross political and sociological borders with his message of faith in Jesus.

JPII was a great foe of Communism and certainly went out of his way to bring himself to people and try to influence them. However, all of that failed to rejuvenate the Church; the celebrity that a pope may enjoy doesn’t add up to rejuvenation of the modern world.

We do not worship JPII. The Church is not JPII’s invention. JPII was a servant of the Lord, not the author of His truth. Catholic history is much older than the reign of JPII and if you believe the Church was wrong for all those centuries, I must warn you to be careful for that is a heresy; the Church cannot teach error.

I remain catholic despite knowing too much about the church. It would be much easier on me to be a blissfully ignorant catholic than be a knowing catholic.

You do not know “too much”. You do not know enough. All you know is what modernists, secularists, and opponents of the very faith you profess to hold tell you. If you’re content with lies, I am sorry for you. If you are merely mistaken and in a confused time of personal exploration, I can understand, as I recently emerged from such a period, myself.

However, for my part, I will stick by God’s Church and by the righteousness of the Age of Faith.

Lycoth, first show how word for word there is any match up with the quotes you put forth.

Your quotes have no reference to the quality or quantity of the church’s work , which is what my post says.

My sources are brimming over with references to the quality and quantity of the Church’s work. If you bothered to study them, you would understand.

However, I did not cite any quotations, to the best of my recollection.

Your quotes only refer to PIX 's references to his views on the Pope losing the temporal and spiritual control of the nations of Europe.

Take his errors and see how they apply to say the US which was primarily founded by leaders who were protestants and Masons , if the founding fathers had established a state church, it was unlikely to be catholic and under the wording of your quote catholics probably wouldn’t be in charge and would be excluded by the reasoning of PIX

So? I’m not saying that we should do everything according to the religious views of the American founders. I’m talking about the Catholic Confessional state.

The only errors are those of secularism.

Also the errors listed by PIX run contrary to the reconciliation between the RCC and the Jewish faith. Or do you think JP2’s and B16’s efforts in that direction are in error as well?

Yes; it was political pandering. There is no need and never has been a need to “reconcile” with the Jews. The Jews must reconcile to Christ, the one they have and continue to reject, and convert, just like everyone else must.

The errors listed by PIX actually add support to the argument that the church can do more with moral authority than with temporal authority, they are evidence that a man was trying to hold on to a temporal power through authority instead of trying to grow the faith through evidence and example of Jesus’ teachings at work. Why didn’t PIX have support from the populous of Italy for maintaining control over more territory? Why weren’t there riots in the streets of Rome for support of PIX?

It is the fallout of the modern era and of secularism that we do not demand adherence to Church teaching. We have become lukewarm and Christ will spit us out of His mouth.

I love this paragraph (and everything else you’ve said). I would just like to make one minor revision that Nazism, while “teamed-up” with fascism was actually an off-shoot of Marxism.

Thank you! The support is much appreciated; indeed, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church and those who ought to be faithful and loyal disciples are led astray. I pray daily for the Church’s renewal.

PS: I apologize for any excerpts of Portarica’s post that are out of sequence, which is due to a formatting boo-boo

 

[EnchantedEve]

Port. “You have it right. The church can do more when it has moral authority then with temporal authority.”

Lycoth, first show how word for word there is any match up with the quotes you put forth.

Your quotes have no reference to the quality or quantity of the church’s work , which is what my post says.

Your quotes only refer to PIX 's references to his views on the Pope losing the temporal and spiritual control of the nations of Europe.

Take his errors and see how they apply to say the US which was primarily founded by leaders who were protestants and Masons , if the founding fathers had established a state church, it was unlikely to be catholic and under the wording of your quote catholics probably wouldn’t be in charge and would be excluded by the reasoning of PIX .

Also the errors listed by PIX run contrary to the reconciliation between the RCC and the Jewish faith. Or do you think JP2’s and B16’s efforts in that direction are in error as well?

The errors listed by PIX actually add support to the argument that the church can do more with moral authority than with temporal authority, they are evidence that a man was trying to hold on to a temporal power through authority instead of trying to grow the faith through evidence and example of Jesus’ teachings at work. Why didn’t PIX have support from the populous of Italy for maintaining control over more territory? Why weren’t there riots in the streets of Rome for support of PIX?

And error 76 " The abolition of the temporal power of which the Apostolic See is possessed would contribute in the greatest degree to the liberty and prosperity of the Church"

Temporal power to the greatest degree? this is from a church that professes to be the deposit of the faith and it fears losing

The church hasn’t exactly fallen on its back since PIX and if we look at the success as a pontiff that JP2 enjoyed it wasn’t because he controlled more temporal assets, it was because his message about the church had not just the wisdom that Jesus taught, but the credibility and strength of character that JP2 brought to the position.

It wasn’t just JP2’s preaching to the choir or temporal subjects that made him a good pope it also was his ability to cross political and sociological borders with his message of faith in Jesus.

Peace

Actually, it is I who wrote this.

Nothing in your posts has indicated the quality or quantity of the Church’s work, past or present, therefore, that matter did not need addressing here. The posted quote was what was being analyzed.

Firstly, the view that the Church should be united to the state applies only to the true Church of Christ, the Catholic Church. It and it only has the right to be called and acclaimed as the one, true Faith. The argument that the US was founded on errors and heresies and therefore the Church does not still have the right to be proclaimed by the state is ludicrous. The Church has the right whether nations recognize it or not. The job of Catholics was to convert Americans to the Faith with the desire to make the one true religion the One recognized by all. Had this happened, than the arguments about the US would be irrelevant. Even if though it never happened, it does not change the fact that should have, and that the Church has a right to public proclamation.

The current popes may not be “in error” necessarily, but certainly according to traditional Church teachings they have strayed somewhat from the views of the Apostolic Church. This is not relevant to our topic at moment. However, if the actions of Bl. Pius IX contradict the modern popes’ actions, so what?

Regarding Bl. Pius IX, again, you would have to show how Pius IX’s concern over temporal power negatively affected his sheparding of the Church. Nothing in his record strongly indicates that this was the case.

Who says the people of the Papal States did not support him? The Papal zuaves and troops fought to the very end to defend the Pope. Besides, even if they did not support him, it still would not change his rights as sovereign and legitimate leader.

Portarica: “Temporal power to the greatest degree? this is from a church that professes to be the deposit of the faith and it fears losing”

I am not even sure what this means.

As for John Paul II, his success as a pontiff is debatable depending on what measure you use. Again, record low Mass attendence, unbelievable dissidence, etc. Few indexes of quantifiable, or even quality measurments can show that great advances have been made in the Church since Bl. Pius IX. Sure, people liked the Holy Father, who wouldn’t? This does not indicate they changed their lives or respected his views, only that they thought he was a good guy. This, however, would be better reserved for another topic.

 

[gospelofmark]

I’ve seen a lot of anti-secularism here, so I’m wondering what you folk dislike (or like) about it.

I am for separation, because when Church & State go together, little good comes from it.

Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. No separation there.

 

[Lycorth]

As for John Paul II, his success as a pontiff is debatable depending on what measure you use. Again, record low Mass attendence, unbelievable dissidence, etc. Few indexes of quantifiable, or even quality measurments can show that great advances have been made in the Church since Bl. Pius IX. Sure, people liked the Holy Father, who wouldn’t? This does not indicate they changed their lives or respected his views, only that they thought he was a good guy. This, however, would be better reserved for another topic.

Indeed; JPII was a great weapon against the Soviet juggernaut, and this I believe is the reason why the Lord guided him to the Chair. But, it is not to be denied that the Faith only continued to grow weak in the world under JPII’s reign; the Church was still not renewed. Celebrity does not equal results, and the demise of the (secularist) Soviet Union aside, JPII’s popularity does not justify his lack of attention towards restoring the Church’s rightful traditional stance.

Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. No separation there.

That has got to be the most concise explanation I have heard of; from the words of Christ Himself we have the exhortation to see to it that God’s will is done by the state. Amidst all our talk, a simple dart of pure wisdom is shot forth - bravo!

 

[portarica]

Some articles if interest:

traditioninaction.org/His…Feudalism.html

traditioninaction.org/Org…Feudalism.html

traditioninaction.org/His…yths1500s.html

(These are the ones I poster earlier).

Your links are broken, But I did get to them from the main website and they are not “scholarly” works and certainly not grounded in facts or actual church holdings.

To understand the concept of feudalism in a more modern context you should consider how closely related the positions of the peasants were to slaves in the southern states or sharecroppers after the civil war.

To think feudalism is the epitome of political systems and that time should be returned to is contrary to the potentiality and equality that Jesus taught.

Peace

 

[portarica]

Indeed; JPII was a great weapon against the Soviet juggernaut, and this I believe is the reason why the Lord guided him to the Chair. But, it is not to be denied that the Faith only continued to grow weak in the world under JPII’s reign; the Church was still not renewed. Celebrity does not equal results, and the demise of the (secularist) Soviet Union aside, JPII’s popularity does not justify his lack of attention towards restoring the Church’s rightful traditional stance.

That has got to be the most concise explanation I have heard of; from the words of Christ Himself we have the exhortation to see to it that God’s will is done by the state. Amidst all our talk, a simple dart of pure wisdom is shot forth - bravo!

Celebrity doesn’t equal results and just as that is true, distrust by the congregation doesn’t equate to fidelity to what Jesus taught.

JP2 had the brass to stand up to temporal power and advance what Jesus taught. Where he lost souls was not in being vocal about what Jesus taught, but in his failure to address the most pressing issue of the administration of the hierarchy of the church.

He didn’t lose the ritualists and traditionalists so much as he lost those that feel the princes of the church should behave as Jesus taught.

Most of the so called traditionalist popes were quite weak spiritually and more concerned with the temporal than the spiritual. Hence the importance of preserving ritual and temporal power which doesn’t impact how the flock is shepherded or mirror what Jesus taught.

Why construct temporal kingdoms in the fashion that the Jews expected if Jesus said that there wouldn’t be an earthly kingdom in the fashion the Jews expected?

Now that we have the churchly palaces, it doesn’t make sense to destroy them, but to say they are tradition doesn’t mean they are of Jesus.

Peace

 

[Lycorth]

Your links are broken, But I did get to them from the main website and they are not “scholarly” works and certainly not grounded in facts or actual church holdings.

To understand the concept of feudalism in a more modern context you should consider how closely related the positions of the peasants were to slaves in the southern states or sharecroppers after the civil war.

That is false. Regine Pernoud treats the system of Feudalism extensively in *Those Terrible Middle Ages!. *

Feudalism is not slavery; the lords were bound to the land every bit as much as the peasantry was. The relationship was reciprocal; the peasantry worked the land and provided services the lords were not skilled or able to provide for themselves, and the lords provided the peasantry with the military protection they needed in a dangerous post-Roman world. The claim that the feudal system was slavery is socialist polemic, not historical fact.

Western civilization was preserved in the fortresses of thousands of individual feudal communities.

To think feudalism is the epitome of political systems and that time should be returned to is contrary to the potentiality and equality that Jesus taught.

In what way? Feudalism was a necessary practice in a dangerous world. It did not contradict the Gospel in the slightest.

Celebrity doesn’t equal results and just as that is true, distrust by the congregation doesn’t equate to fidelity to what Jesus taught.

Distrust of what?

JP2 had the brass to stand up to temporal power and advance what Jesus taught. Where he lost souls was not in being vocal about what Jesus taught, but in his failure to address the most pressing issue of the administration of the hierarchy of the church.

From the traditionalist point of view, this is true.

He didn’t lose the ritualists and traditionalists so much as he lost those that feel the princes of the church should behave as Jesus taught.

There is no one who thinks that the “princes of the Church” should behave as anything other than good Catholics. I don’t know where you even got such a rotten phrase, but you should excise it from your vocabulary immediately. Even the most bizarre sedevacantists do not believe that the clergy should be royalty. Please stop citing inaccurate anti-Catholic polemic.

Most of the so called traditionalist popes were quite weak spiritually and more concerned with the temporal than the spiritual. Hence the importance of preserving ritual and temporal power which doesn’t impact how the flock is shepherded or mirror what Jesus taught.

That is false. There have been many weak popes throughout history, but popes such as Saint Pius X were men of tradition and as a consequence, men of Christ.

Why construct temporal kingdoms in the fashion that the Jews expected if Jesus said that there wouldn’t be an earthly kingdom in the fashion the Jews expected?

There has never been a pope who sought to do anything in the Jewish fashion; the Jews believed in a military messiah who would lead them to world dominance and free them from Rome. No pope could ever believe that.

Temporal power is necessary to safeguard the Faith and see to the defense of the people. However, no pope has ever sought to do what you are claiming.

Now that we have the churchly palaces, it doesn’t make sense to destroy them, but to say they are tradition doesn’t mean they are of Jesus.

Those who offer the Body and Blood of Christ deserve decent places to live in worthy of their station. The Church deserves all the opulence the Lord blessed it with; did it never occur to you that the material richness of the Church was God’s reward for steadfastly preserving and promoting the Faith in the turbulent years after Rome’s fall and the dangerous times before, when Christians were murdered for the Faith?

The Church never sought temporal blessings, but God rewarded it thusly. Just because there are riches present, doesn’t mean there is evil and greed there as well. The Church uses its opulence to glorify the Lord with beauty and administer to the people; a poor Church could not afford to carry the Cross around the world and protect the faithful when inevitable dangers fell.

I think you need to look beyond the nice residences and pretty vestments and see the human beings beneath. Do not judge as the world judges.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Your links are broken, But I did get to them from the main website and they are not “scholarly” works and certainly not grounded in facts or actual church holdings.

To understand the concept of feudalism in a more modern context you should consider how closely related the positions of the peasants were to slaves in the southern states or sharecroppers after the civil war.

To think feudalism is the epitome of political systems and that time should be returned to is contrary to the potentiality and equality that Jesus taught.

Peace

I made no pretense that these were scholarly works, although they are based on scholarly works. Again, The Framework of Church & State by Cahill would help you know this, but I know this does not matter to you. However, you indicated you desired to see links, so I furnished some. How they are not based on facts, or how you would know this, or what evidence you furnish to base this view from is beyond me. Again, conjecture. I guess giving baseless opinions is your fancy. Your perogative.

The relationship for comparison between southern slaves and peasants is again, erroneous and without foundation.

Please tell us where in the Gospels Our Lord taught the “potentiality” and equality you envision.