Used Catholicism to be a political ideology?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nick34
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nick34

Guest
Last weekend I started to read a little bit about Lutheranism. I wanted to know why Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Germany and Iceland each have their own independent Lutheran state church and why Catholic countries do not.
From what I understand the reason why Lutheran countries have a state church is because of Luther’s Two Kingdoms Doctrine.
If I understand the doctrine correctly it means that the state controls worldly affairs and that the church controls religious affairs. To emphasize this Lutheran countries created a state church.
It seems to me that this is a very early from of seperation of church and state. This as a reaction to the influence of the Catholic Church on daily life and politics.
Catholic France eventually introduced laïcité to create a similar effect.

What I am wondering is, if Catholicism used to be a religious inspired political ideology and that with the introduction of representative democracy (or French laïcité) Catholicism became a religion seperated from state?
 
nick34 said:
Last weekend I started to read a little bit about Lutheranism. I wanted to know why Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Germany and Iceland each have their own independent Lutheran state church and why Catholic countries do not.
From what I understand the reason why Lutheran countries have a state church is because of Luther’s Two Kingdoms Doctrine.
If I understand the doctrine correctly it means that the state controls worldly affairs and that the church controls religious affairs. To emphasize this Lutheran countries created a state church.
It seems to me that this is a very early from of seperation of church and state. This as a reaction to the influence of the Catholic Church on daily life and politics.
Catholic France eventually introduced laïcité to create a similar effect.

What I am wondering is, if Catholicism used to be a religious inspired political ideology and that with the introduction of representative democracy (or French laïcité) Catholicism became a religion seperated from state?
Click to expand...
Catholicism has never been a political ideology; what it has done is to inform the political system of a given state. Catholic principles are moral principles, and several governments throughout history have based their secular laws on these moral precepts, even going so far as to declare themselves a "Catholic’ nation, as was the case in Spain, France, and I believe Ireland.

Lutheranism’s state churches exist because after Luther rejected the central authority of the Church he had to derive authority from somewhere else. The place they chose to derive authority was the state. Since each state (aka “country”,) was only solvent within it’s own borders, it became necessary for each state to have their own individual authority structure.

This is in stark contrast to Catholicism, who’s core authority is in the Papacy. This authority is not bound by geographic and political boundaries, and instead is binding across all of Christendom. The closest thing we have to the “state” structure are dioceses, and while each diocese exercises authority over their territory, they are not autonomous as with the state churches of Lutheranism. Each diocese is beholden to the Pope, ensuring a universal standard of theology and dogma which is lacking in all other churches.

I hope this has answered your question. If not, please clarify what I missed and I’ll give it a shot ^^
 
ProdglArchitect said:
Catholicism has never been a political ideology; what it has done is to inform the political system of a given state. Catholic principles are moral principles, and several governments throughout history have based their secular laws on these moral precepts, even going so far as to declare themselves a "Catholic’ nation, as was the case in Spain, France, and I believe Ireland.

Lutheranism’s state churches exist because after Luther rejected the central authority of the Church he had to derive authority from somewhere else. The place they chose to derive authority was the state. Since each state (aka “country”,) was only solvent within it’s own borders, it became necessary for each state to have their own individual authority structure.

This is in stark contrast to Catholicism, who’s core authority is in the Papacy. This authority is not bound by geographic and political boundaries, and instead is binding across all of Christendom. The closest thing we have to the “state” structure are dioceses, and while each diocese exercises authority over their territory, they are not autonomous as with the state churches of Lutheranism. Each diocese is beholden to the Pope, ensuring a universal standard of theology and dogma which is lacking in all other churches.

I hope this has answered your question. If not, please clarify what I missed and I’ll give it a shot ^^
Click to expand...
Thank you for your extensive answer!

What I understand from you answer is that the Two Kingdoms Doctrine is not intended (and cannot be seen) as an early form of seperation between church and state, but the opposite. It strengthens the ties between the national Lutheran church, the state and the people of that state.
Instead of showing loyalty to a foreign authority (the Pope), Lutherans are supposed to be loyal to their own state and own national church.

You write that Catholic authority is not bound by geographic and political boundaries, but covers all of Christendom. It is very international oriented.
The way Lutheralism is organized is very much bound by geographic and political boundaries. Does this mean that Lutheranism has a very nationalist (political) view on the role of the church, state and its people?
 
nick34 said:
Thank you for your extensive answer!

What I understand from you answer is that the Two Kingdoms Doctrine is not intended (and cannot be seen) as an early form of seperation between church and state, but the opposite. It strengthens the ties between the national Lutheran church, the state and the people of that state.
Instead of showing loyalty to a foreign authority (the Pope), Lutherans are supposed to be loyal to their own state and own national church.
Click to expand...
Pretty much.
You write that Catholic authority is not bound by geographic and political boundaries, but covers all of Christendom. It is very international oriented.
The way Lutheralism is organized is very much bound by geographic and political boundaries. Does this mean that Lutheranism has a very nationalist (political) view on the role of the church, state and its people?
Click to expand...
I don’t know enough about Lutheran communities to be able to answer this last bit. Sorry.
 
nick34 said:
The way Lutheralism is organized is very much bound by geographic and political boundaries. Does this mean that Lutheranism has a very nationalist (political) view on the role of the church, state and its people?
Click to expand...
I grew up Lutheran, so I kind of have some insight into this. In the U.S., Lutherans generally aren’t any more nationalistic than other Protestants, since Lutheranism isn’t the state religion in the U.S. Plus, Lutheranism here is so fragmented that there is little consensus about what role the Church should take in politics in the first place.

In Scandinavia, Church and State have traditionally gone hand-in-hand, and there is one state Lutheran Church. Scandinavian royalty are all Lutheran and Lutheranism is sanctioned by the government. This creates more of a nationalistic identity for Lutherans. For example, the idea that a core part of being Swedish is to be Lutheran. With decreased religious practice in Scandinavia, as well as a greater number of Muslims and Catholics in the region, this attitude has started to wane.

I do not believe that Lutheran doctrine in itself has a specific view of the place of Lutheranism in politics and the state (though I could be wrong). But, I think the culture in which Lutherans find themselves can increase or decrease nationalism as a whole.
 
Kaninchen said:
It was in ‘Lo Stato Pontificio’ (aka the Papal States).
Click to expand...
Not quite. The Pope held political power in the Papal States, but the states themselves were not a theocracy. Or, I guess they were in the sense that it was the Pope exercising authority, but even during that period the governing body was technically “secular” in that it was not theological in nature. The Church and State were separate, even though they were both headed by the Papacy. Granted, there were a number of Popes who didn’t do a great job of maintaining this separation, but the separation existed none the less.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
Not quite. The Pope held political power in the Papal States, but the states themselves were not a theocracy. Or, I guess they were in the sense that it was the Pope exercising authority, but even during that period the governing body was technically “secular” in that it was not theological in nature. The Church and State were separate, even though they were both headed by the Papacy. Granted, there were a number of Popes who didn’t do a great job of maintaining this separation, but the separation existed none the less.
Click to expand...
I think we’ll just have to differ (not agree to differ, just differ).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top