Vatican Loyalty

  • Thread starter Thread starter Balcerhouse
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Balcerhouse

Guest
I was raised a Baptist and I was always told how anti-american Catholics are which is of course ridiculous. The reason is because I was always told that we have an allegiance to the Church of Rome over the United States. I don’t think that’s actually dogma or anything but hypothetically if the U.S. were to say take up arms against the Holy See we would be obligated to defend it, right? I’m perfectly fine with swearing allegiance to the Pope over the President or the Constitution any day.
 
I think your hypothetical example is inconceivable. And even so, the time needed for the U.S. to successfully attack and take over a country the size of a golf course would render moot any opportunity to mount a defense. What is sadly a lot more likely would be a physical attack from another part of the world, say, the mid-East. No army is going to besiege the Vatican; the methods would be bombs and drones. No opportunity for a defense there either.

Attacks against Church properties in the U.S. are a lot more likely, also sadly enough.
 
Oh, I know there is no reason for it to happen. I guess Church property world wide would’ve been better to ask.
 
Balcerhouse said:
I was raised a Baptist and I was always told how anti-american Catholics are which is of course ridiculous. The reason is because I was always told that we have an allegiance to the Church of Rome over the United States. I don’t think that’s actually dogma or anything but hypothetically if the U.S. were to say take up arms against the Holy See we would be obligated to defend it, right? I’m perfectly fine with swearing allegiance to the Pope over the President or the Constitution any day.
Click to expand...
To answer your question directly, which seems to be so difficult for the many, a Catholic’s allegiance to the Church always trumps his allegiance to the nation. The Bride of Christ does not take second place to anyone or any nation. Over the centuries thousands have died for the Church, even when they have had to oppose their own flag.
 
What most governments fear is that they know Catholics will not abandon their loyalty to the Church over that to their country. God ALWAYS comes before country. It is why all dictatorial regimes fear the Catholic Church and her members. They know it will be hard to impossible for them to choose country over Church.

The Vatican is the visible seat of the Church and the Pope her leader. This makes the Pope a VERY powerful person, even if he does not wield that power often. If the Pope said do not vote for Obama, most Catholics would not vote for Obama. The same is not necessarily true if the President is doing the asking.

Catholics are also supposed to have a manifest social doctrine as well. Meaning that when we hold political office we do not abandon our faith and beliefs. The social kingship of Christ is supposed to reign (meaning we make Catholic truth the social law). This is why you see such pushback from protestants who naturally put more faith in the state.
 
There is a distinction between loyalty to the Church and loyalty to Vatican City.For those of us who are not Vatican citizens, we Catholics owe no allegiance to Vatican City or to the Pope as sovereign of Vatican City. If another power were to attack Vatican City, then we have no obligation to fight for it (who does, however, is the Republic of Italy, who is obligated to defend Vatican City by treaty).

It would be more difficult to attack the Holy See because the Holy See, while it has an international identity, is not territorial per se, that is to say, the territory that can be attacked is Vatican City. Even if Vatican City were to be overrun or dissolved such that it ceases to exist, the Holy See will still remain, and continue to be recognized in the international community.

What we ARE required to be loyal to, however, is the Church, before any nation, be it one’s own or Vatican City.
 
moon1234 said:
What most governments fear is that they know Catholics will not abandon their loyalty to the Church over that to their country. God ALWAYS comes before country. It is why all dictatorial regimes fear the Catholic Church and her members. They know it will be hard to impossible for them to choose country over Church.

The Vatican is the visible seat of the Church and the Pope her leader. This makes the Pope a VERY powerful person, even if he does not wield that power often. If the Pope said do not vote for Obama, most Catholics would not vote for Obama. The same is not necessarily true if the President is doing the asking.

Catholics are also supposed to have a manifest social doctrine as well. Meaning that when we hold political office we do not abandon our faith and beliefs. The social kingship of Christ is supposed to reign (meaning we make Catholic truth the social law). This is why you see such pushback from protestants who naturally put more faith in the state.
Click to expand...
Really? In the West? Certainly in other parts of the world, but I am not so sure about North America (minus Mexico) and most of Europe.
 
It is true that many don’t APPEAR to follow the Church’s teachings, but I believe that this is mainly due to poor catechesis and not a willingness to defy the Church.
 
On the scaffold, St. Thomas More said he died “the king’s good servant, but God’s first.”
 
JReducation said:
To answer your question directly, which seems to be so difficult for the many, a Catholic’s allegiance to the Church always trumps his allegiance to the nation. The Bride of Christ does not take second place to anyone or any nation. Over the centuries thousands have died for the Church, even when they have had to oppose their own flag.
Click to expand...
Agree with you 1,000%. I am american by accident of birth, but I am God’s child before all else. I could never turn a blind eye to the Holy See in the name of nationalism. I mean the Church has endured for nearly 2000 years when no country has existed as long.

BTW - hope you are doing better.
 
JReducation said:
To answer your question directly, which seems to be so difficult for the many, a Catholic’s allegiance to the Church always trumps his allegiance to the nation. The Bride of Christ does not take second place to anyone or any nation. Over the centuries thousands have died for the Church, even when they have had to oppose their own flag.
Click to expand...
Amen, Brother!
 
Balcerhouse said:
I was raised a Baptist and I was always told how anti-american Catholics are which is of course ridiculous. The reason is because I was always told that we have an allegiance to the Church of Rome over the United States. I don’t think that’s actually dogma or anything but hypothetically if the U.S. were to say take up arms against the Holy See we would be obligated to defend it, right? I’m perfectly fine with swearing allegiance to the Pope over the President or the Constitution any day.
Click to expand...
Many Baptists and other Evangelicals profess that their loyalty to God comes before their loyalty to country, even through their Red, White and Blue choral extravaganzas. I don’t see any difference between that and a Catholic’s allegiance to the Church.
 
During the Renaissance and Middle Ages when the Papal States controlled a great deal of territory, many a sincere Catholic fought against the armies of the Pope.
 
Catholics cannot separate Vatican City from the Holy See for several important reasons.
  1. Vatican City was created for the sole purpose of giving the Holy See a home from where it could run the Church without interference from other powers. Any attack on the sovereignty of Vatican City compromises the independence of the Holy See. The likelihood of a military strike against Vatican City is remote, unless someone attacks Rome. However, the likelihood of political attack against Vatican City is very probable today. It is incumbent on Catholics to protect the independence of the Holy See by protecting its home.
  2. Those who are challenging the sovereignty of Vatican City are doing so because they want to destroy the influence of the Catholic Church. The attackers are very coy. They don’t want to go down on record as being anti-Catholic. They will go down on record as not recognizing the sovereignty of Vatican City. If Catholics buy into this alleged separation between the Church and Vatican City, they will be formally cooperating with evil against the Church.
  3. There are those who are interested in the riches within Vatican City. Here again, it is morally incumbent on Catholics to protect those riches, because those are part of humanity’s patrimony. They are not the property of the Church or any other world power. They are the property of humanity and the Church is their guardian. In justice to humanity, we cannot allow that which belongs to the world to fall into the hands of private individuals who will capitalize on what is not their own.
It is stunning to see that some Catholics want to apply “separation of Church and state” even to Vatican City, forgetting that the term was coined by a man who hated Christianity, who rewrote the Gospel, who called the Evangelists and Apostles charlatans, and who said that the happiest day of his life would be the day that Christianity died, Thomas Jefferson, a man who referred to Providence in all of his writings, but who hated Christianity, especially Catholic Christianity. For Catholics to follow his philosophy of separation without knowing what Jefferson meant when he used the term is very dangerous. The other Founding Fathers never used “separation of Church and State” or applied that line of thought in their political lives. They understood its nuance.
 
moon1234 said:
What most governments fear is that they know Catholics will not abandon their loyalty to the Church over that to their country. God ALWAYS comes before country. It is why all dictatorial regimes fear the Catholic Church and her members. They know it will be hard to impossible for them to choose country over Church.

The Vatican is the visible seat of the Church and the Pope her leader. This makes the Pope a VERY powerful person, even if he does not wield that power often. If the Pope said do not vote for Obama, most Catholics would not vote for Obama. The same is not necessarily true if the President is doing the asking.

Catholics are also supposed to have a manifest social doctrine as well. Meaning that when we hold political office we do not abandon our faith and beliefs. The social kingship of Christ is supposed to reign (meaning we make Catholic truth the social law). This is why you see such pushback from protestants who naturally put more faith in the state.
Click to expand...
Code: 
There are very goodo reasons that they Church never makes official endorsements of candidates, but only insists that Catholics do their best when laws opposed to the faith are proposed or passed. 

When Benedict XV urged peace during the First World War, he was heartily denounced by many French Catholics as Pope Judas XV. When John Paul II made it clear that an invasion of Iraq, as a country which had committed no act of war, was unjust, many who were vocal in upholding him as he taught on other life issues smothered his opposition with deafening silence, as they did his earlier opposition to nuclear weapons and the recognition of the nearly-never permissible use of the death penalty.
Politically, the pope is fundamentally powerless, and has been since the papal states were taken away 140 years ago. Stalin’s famous boast, “The pope? How many divisions has the pope?” has served mainly to underscore the fact that papal power rests solely on the receptivity of the faithful and willing auditors to moral persuasion.
 
JReducation said:
Catholics cannot separate Vatican City from the Holy See for several important reasons.
  1. Vatican City was created for the sole purpose of giving the Holy See a home from where it could run the Church without interference from other powers. Any attack on the sovereignty of Vatican City compromises the independence of the Holy See. The likelihood of a military strike against Vatican City is remote, unless someone attacks Rome. However, the likelihood of political attack against Vatican City is very probable today. It is incumbent on Catholics to protect the independence of the Holy See by protecting its home.
  2. Those who are challenging the sovereignty of Vatican City are doing so because they want to destroy the influence of the Catholic Church. The attackers are very coy. They don’t want to go down on record as being anti-Catholic. They will go down on record as not recognizing the sovereignty of Vatican City. If Catholics buy into this alleged separation between the Church and Vatican City, they will be formally cooperating with evil against the Church.
  3. There are those who are interested in the riches within Vatican City. Here again, it is morally incumbent on Catholics to protect those riches, because those are part of humanity’s patrimony. They are not the property of the Church or any other world power. They are the property of humanity and the Church is their guardian. In justice to humanity, we cannot allow that which belongs to the world to fall into the hands of private individuals who will capitalize on what is not their own.
It is stunning to see that some Catholics want to apply “separation of Church and state” even to Vatican City, forgetting that the term was coined by a man who hated Christianity, who rewrote the Gospel, who called the Evangelists and Apostles charlatans, and who said that the happiest day of his life would be the day that Christianity died, Thomas Jefferson, a man who referred to Providence in all of his writings, but who hated Christianity, especially Catholic Christianity. For Catholics to follow his philosophy of separation without knowing what Jefferson meant when he used the term is very dangerous. The other Founding Fathers never used “separation of Church and State” or applied that line of thought in their political lives. They understood its nuance.
Click to expand...
Code: 
This sounds a current version of the Ultramontanist arguments for the retention of the papal states. Few bodies of citizens today would seem to be particularly interested in keeping the common patrimony of humanity at all, since they don't seem eager to keep humanity, but appear to be fleeing it.
The Vatican as a political entity does give the hierarchy of the Church a certain inviolability, which is definitely under attack from the most radical quarters, but the Court of Human Rights turned down the absurd demand that Benedict XVI be tried for crimes against humanity.

Still, as Blessed John Henry Newman pointed out, the political power of the pontiffs is something that is not essential to the Petrine mission. One day, Peter, like Christ, may have no place to rest his head.
 
JReducation said:
Catholics cannot separate Vatican City from the Holy See for several important reasons.
  1. Vatican City was created for the sole purpose of giving the Holy See a home from where it could run the Church without interference from other powers. Any attack on the sovereignty of Vatican City compromises the independence of the Holy See. The likelihood of a military strike against Vatican City is remote, unless someone attacks Rome. However, the likelihood of political attack against Vatican City is very probable today. It is incumbent on Catholics to protect the independence of the Holy See by protecting its home.
  2. Those who are challenging the sovereignty of Vatican City are doing so because they want to destroy the influence of the Catholic Church. The attackers are very coy. They don’t want to go down on record as being anti-Catholic. They will go down on record as not recognizing the sovereignty of Vatican City. If Catholics buy into this alleged separation between the Church and Vatican City, they will be formally cooperating with evil against the Church.
  3. There are those who are interested in the riches within Vatican City. Here again, it is morally incumbent on Catholics to protect those riches, because those are part of humanity’s patrimony. They are not the property of the Church or any other world power. They are the property of humanity and the Church is their guardian. In justice to humanity, we cannot allow that which belongs to the world to fall into the hands of private individuals who will capitalize on what is not their own.
It is stunning to see that some Catholics want to apply “separation of Church and state” even to Vatican City, forgetting that the term was coined by a man who hated Christianity, who rewrote the Gospel, who called the Evangelists and Apostles charlatans, and who said that the happiest day of his life would be the day that Christianity died, Thomas Jefferson, a man who referred to Providence in all of his writings, but who hated Christianity, especially Catholic Christianity. For Catholics to follow his philosophy of separation without knowing what Jefferson meant when he used the term is very dangerous. The other Founding Fathers never used “separation of Church and State” or applied that line of thought in their political lives. They understood its nuance.
Click to expand...
five stars
 
JReducation said:
To answer your question directly, which seems to be so difficult for the many, a Catholic’s allegiance to the Church always trumps his allegiance to the nation. The Bride of Christ does not take second place to anyone or any nation. Over the centuries thousands have died for the Church, even when they have had to oppose their own flag.
Click to expand...
The Vatican is not the Church and is therefore not the Bride of Christ
 
eamonnroma said:
The Vatican is not the Church and is therefore not the Bride of Christ
Click to expand...
But without the Vatican the Church would be thousands of times more dysfunctional, and the Pope would have very little in terms of bureaucracy and independence with which to protect himself; he would be a sitting duck waiting for some tyrant (cough… Obama… cough) to imprison or kill him.

The Vatican is not the Bride of Christ, but it sure helps the Bride of Christ. To say otherwise is like saying it would be okay to smash all the churches of the world and then not expect there to be major consequences for the life of the Church. No, those buildings are not themselves some sort of dogmatic requirement for the Church, but they are practically necessary for the life of the Church.
 
Jaysuitical said:
Still, as Blessed John Henry Newman pointed out, the political power of the pontiffs is something that is not essential to the Petrine mission. One day, Peter, like Christ, may have no place to rest his head.
Click to expand...
eamonnroma said:
The Vatican is not the Church and is therefore not the Bride of Christ
Click to expand...
Bl. John Henry Newman was theologically correct, which is how he is to be understood. We know this from Tradition. Just look at the number of popes executed, exiled and imprisoned through the centuries, yet the Petrine Ministry continues.

However, it is precisely this history that also serves to help us understand the benefit of a sovereign state from which the Petrine Ministry can be exercised without persecution. To protect the Petrine Ministry, we protect the sovereignty of the state that is the home to the ministry.

There are many things in the Church that are not essential, but beneficial. The priesthood is not essential to consecrated life. Yet, how many consecrated religious are also priests?

Some things exist because they are a good, not necessarily because they add to the essence of something else.

The analogy of the Son of Man not having a place to lay his head does not include Peter. Jesus makes this statement before his passion and resurrection. Jesus transfers the pastoral care of the Church to Peter after the resurrection. Therefore, Peter becomes the Vicar of a triumphant Christ, not the suffering servant prophesied by Isaiah. It is the glorified Christ, who has triumphed over death and sin, who confirms Peter’s pontificate and who asks Peter to care for his sheep.

The reference that Christ is making when he says that the “Son of Man has no place to lay his head” foreshadows how he was to die. It is a reference to the Suffering Servant in Isaiah. Peter is not the Suffering Servant. He is the Vicar of the risen Christ.

Jesus did foreshadow the Peter would suffer. As we have seen through history. Peter has suffered and will continue to suffer.

That being said, Peter is not the Church. Where there is Peter, there is the Church. The Church is our mother. She has a right to have a home and the duty of Catholics is to protect that home, just as we would protect the home of our biological mothers if it were under attack even if it were just a bunch of rowdy kids throwing eggs at Mom’s house. We wouldn’t stand by and watch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top