Can we agree to this as Catholics?
Yes he was right. Church and state mixing where the church is in charge, or the state is in charge have both been disasters. Better that they stay separate.
So does the Church have authority over secular authorities only in predominantly Catholic countries? For example, does the Church have authority over the government of China or over the government of a mostly Protestant country?
You mean like a Christian version of Sharia law? No, that would not be a better world. A better world is one that separates church from state and promotes secular governance. Not necessarily a secular society that is denuded of any public/visible religious expression, which is an erroneous assumption that people often jump to. Instead, governance should be secular in the sense that- on paper, at the very least- any person of any religion is equal before the law, and the law basically works well for everyone.
Its from Martin Luther’s letter to the German nobility.
Anyway, I am reading the chapter on the reformation where I found this quote in a footnote. They are describing Luther’s arguments. This is a scholarly book though, and not a book on apologetics. They are not defending the church, just developing an argument for how Luther used scripture and how the politics of his day influenced his theology. For example, he was not for a church state separation. He saw it as the duty of the state to enforce orthodoxy (Lutheran) as the peasants revolt later shows (although I am not at that part of the book yet).
But it can’t be denied that the Papacy at the time leading up to the reformation did terrible things and abused their power unlike any other time in papal history. Honestly, if some of those men were president in the U.S. they would have been impeached and given the death penalty. They were meddling in politics like no pope would do today.
Must Unam Sanctam be considered ex cathedra?
The Fifth Lateran Council approved Unam Sanctam. So the teaching may well be infallible. But we are required to believe all the teachings of the Church, not just infallible ones.
So when a Medici pope asks you to murder his rival in another Italian city state, you must do it? Or when a Medici pope levies taxes or interferes in the succession of German electors to be the holy roman emperor, we are to submit? Or even when the pope intervenes in an election and decides to assume the power of the holy roman empire in Germany, everyone should just role over? Or when a pope appoints his nephew or son to a powerful ecclesiastical seat, we are simply to submit?
That council also demanded that bishops give permission for any book to be printed in their diocese, among other oddities. Might that council have erred? Or fallen prey to politics?
Conciliar and papal decisions on discipline are fallible. Only teachings can possibly be infallible. The decision concerning permission for book is of the prudential order; it is not a teaching.
What is to keep other claims from being ‘positively reformulated’ so they are likewise “of the prudential order?” Weren’t both of these teachings the result of political necessity? The delineation seems arbitrary (and awfully convenient) to non-Roman Catholics.
I agree. To me, it goes back to the “give Caesar his due” argument in Scripture. I do think the Catholic Church overstepped its bounds for centuries - I am reading a book about the Papacy during the Holy Roman Empire up to the Middle Ages -
. I tire of Catholics dancing around this sordid history like it didn’t happen; it makes us look ten times worse than just admitting it and saying that time is past. (For that matter, the Index wasn’t abolished until 1966.)scrollpublishing.com/store/Luther-Peasants.html
Luther supported the peaceful peasants , but opposed the violent ones , good analysis of history by the way.I agree. To me, it goes back to the “give Caesar his due” argument in Scripture. I do think the Catholic Church overstepped its bounds for centuries - I am reading a book about the Papacy during the Holy Roman Empire up to the Middle Ages -
Luther is inconsistent often though - but in terms of the Peasants’ Rebellion I think he just writing in the context that the State should protect social order as was their right and duty as ordained by God: "Paul, too, speaking in Romans 12 [13:1] to all baptized Christians, says, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.”
I don’t remember the details of the Peasants’ Rebellion but my guess is the peasants probably had a decent case against the authorities as well. I know Luther’s support of the suppression is very controversial, even for Lutherans.
scrollpublishing.com/store/Luther-Peasants.html
As for the Pope’s role vs. the State today, obviously he has no authority to act against the State but I think he has a right to speak out in a spiritually authoritative capacity (the voice of God), such as in defense of violence against Christians in the Middle East or other injustices that affect the poor.
