What is the ideal vision of Christendom?

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

BookofJames

Guest
Hey guys!

I hope this is the right area to post this. I was wondering, if the Church had her way, would the popes have power over world leaders like they did back in the day when almost all Europe was Catholic?

I ask this because I am writing a paper about secularism for my English class, and would love to get a Catholic perspective on how “Christendom” would ideally work. I picture governments submitting to the pope’s will to the degree that they couldn’t excercise proper power without the papacy getting involved.

In our fallen world, how would the papacy ideally relate itself to national governments and what is the pinnacle vision of Christendom? Was getting rid of the Papal coronation good or bad? Did we have it right in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance? What was the biggest factor contributing to the secularization of the Western world? I know that’s a lot of questions, but I think they all drive at the same thing 🙂

I hope y’all see what I’m driving at. If I’ve confused you, please tell me so I’ll try to explain myself better!

Peace and love,
Patrick

I hope you see where I’m getting at! Thanks for responding!

Peace and Love
Patrick
 
Your vision sounds good. If everyone on earth were a “good catholic” things would be a lot simpler. I think the Middle Ages started out right but then got too midevil. I don’t think human beings will ever agree on religion or politics.
 
Ideally, there shouldn’t have to be a pope. I think the Christian ideal is to be in Christ’s presence, with Him leading.

Any human put into power, unless separated completely from sin, is liable to become corrupt. Therefore, the only ideal leader is one who cannot sin and one who leads. The best person for this job is Christ, as a person in God Himself. Only in a situation like that is there to be peace.

I doubt a place like that will happen in this world, but I hope to be a part of that one in the next.
 
Jesus said again and again that his kingdom was not of this world. No system of governance, even a Catholic monarchy, is righteous or good. Some are obviously better than others, but that’s about it.

God is not coercive. He doesn’t force people to love or follow him. Likewise, we cannot and must not expect a civil government to enforce religious morals and practices on its citizens.

Don’t expect saintliness or virtue from political leaders. it’s nice when it occurs, but it’s rare enough. The kingdom of God is within. God reigns in our hearts. If we allow his kingdom to be established within us, we will make the world a better place.
 
There is no simple way, nor only one objectively true way, to answer this question.

Part of the genius of Catholicism, historically, is the Church’s ability to subsume broader cultures and systems that existed before her.

The Church has peacefully coexisted with many forms of government. Liberal democracy, constitutional monarchy, absolute monarchy, oligarchies, etc., are all, in theory, compatible with Catholic teaching on the state.

The state has the duty to enact laws that direct men to their proper end and to the good. Before Vatican II there was clearly an emphasis that, in predominantly Catholic countries, the state had the duty to give special pride of place to Holy Mother Church, and laws that favored her. In today’s pluralistic world that is increasingly seen as more theoretical and less of a practical possibility, though it has not been condemned.

“Christendom” no longer exists in the modern world. Western societies, even our supposedly religious society in America, generally believes power emanates from the people rather than from God (we can get into whether God invests power in the people, from whence power then comes, but you get the point); thus rights are not irrevocable and the state is deified. This is a sad development traceable to a convergence of factors, philosophical, political and moral.

STRICTLY MY OPINION BELOW (not that of Holy Mother Church) …

The ideal state:
  • suppresses public manifestations of heresy and blasphemy
  • does not regulate the private religious beliefs and practices of individuals and families
  • gives pride of place in laws and customs to the Roman Church (holidays should be Catholic, special tax status for the Church, etc.), but conversion is not forced
  • recognizes the principle of subsidiarity - that which can be done at the local level must be done at the local level
  • enacts only laws in conformity with the natural law as interpreted by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, if those laws are, a) actually enforceable, b) ‘worth’ the cost of enforcing, c) do more good than harm
  • strictly guards private property rights and embraces an economic system of distributism; neither ‘capitalism’ nor ‘socialism’ but that ideal which allows for the private ownership of some land in most every family
  • protects the dignity of human life (from conception) to natural death (except in certain capital cases where the death penalty may rightfully be a resort)
  • adheres to the ‘just war theory’ and embraces moral norms in foreign policy and war
 
bzkoss236 said:
Ideally, there shouldn’t have to be a pope. I think the Christian ideal is to be in Christ’s presence, with Him leading.

Any human put into power, unless separated completely from sin, is liable to become corrupt. Therefore, the only ideal leader is one who cannot sin and one who leads. The best person for this job is Christ, as a person in God Himself. Only in a situation like that is there to be peace.

I doubt a place like that will happen in this world, but I hope to be a part of that one in the next.
Click to expand...
???

Ideally Adam would have never seen (but for the ‘O happy fault’), but given original sin and our need for redemption I’m not sure why you would say “there shouldn’t have to be a pope.”
 
JustinMissouri said:
STRICTLY MY OPINION BELOW (not that of Holy Mother Church) …

The ideal state:
  • suppresses public manifestations of heresy and blasphemy
  • does not regulate the private religious beliefs and practices of individuals and families
  • gives pride of place in laws and customs to the Roman Church (holidays should be Catholic, special tax status for the Church, etc.), but conversion is not forced
  • recognizes the principle of subsidiarity - that which can be done at the local level must be done at the local level
  • enacts only laws in conformity with the natural law as interpreted by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, if those laws are, a) actually enforceable, b) ‘worth’ the cost of enforcing, c) do more good than harm
Click to expand...
Then we agree. If you are not a fan of General Francisco Franco then you should look into his career and achievements.

I find it interesting that even early on, in the 25 point constitution of the Falange Española y de las JONS, essentially the vision of the great Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, that the nation is to be considered Catholic and privilege is to be given to the work and authority of the Church, and its institutions respected and advanced, but the government itself is distinguished from the Church as neither being an arm of her, nor her an arm of it. Thus the authority of the state is always in the interest of Catholicism and the Church, but is external to it.
 
JustinMissouri said:
STRICTLY MY OPINION BELOW (not that of Holy Mother Church) …

The ideal state:
  • suppresses public manifestations of heresy and blasphemy
  • does not regulate the private religious beliefs and practices of individuals and families
  • gives pride of place in laws and customs to the Roman Church (holidays should be Catholic, special tax status for the Church, etc.), but conversion is not forced
  • recognizes the principle of subsidiarity - that which can be done at the local level must be done at the local level
  • enacts only laws in conformity with the natural law as interpreted by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, if those laws are, a) actually enforceable, b) ‘worth’ the cost of enforcing, c) do more good than harm
  • strictly guards private property rights and embraces an economic system of distributism; neither ‘capitalism’ nor ‘socialism’ but that ideal which allows for the private ownership of some land in most every family
  • protects the dignity of human life (from conception) to natural death (except in certain capital cases where the death penalty may rightfully be a resort)
  • adheres to the ‘just war theory’ and embraces moral norms in foreign policy and war
Click to expand...
Once upon a time there were four little Rabbits, and their names
were–
Code: 
      Flopsy,
   Mopsy,
Cotton-tail,
and Peter.

They lived with their Mother in a sand-bank, underneath the root of a
very big fir-tree.

😉
 
Francoist said:
Then we agree. If you are not a fan of General Francisco Franco then you should look into his career and achievements.

I find it interesting that even early on, in the 25 point constitution of the Falange Española y de las JONS, essentially the vision of the great Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, that the nation is to be considered Catholic and privilege is to be given to the work and authority of the Church, and its institutions respected and advanced, but the government itself is distinguished from the Church as neither being an arm of her, nor her an arm of it. Thus the authority of the state is always in the interest of Catholicism and the Church, but is external to it.
Click to expand...
God’s blessings to you, it seems those with a distinctly Catholic social vision are a dying breed!
 
Francoist said:
Then we agree. If you are not a fan of General Francisco Franco then you should look into his career and achievements.

I find it interesting that even early on, in the 25 point constitution of the Falange Española y de las JONS, essentially the vision of the great Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, that the nation is to be considered Catholic and privilege is to be given to the work and authority of the Church, and its institutions respected and advanced, but the government itself is distinguished from the Church as neither being an arm of her, nor her an arm of it. Thus the authority of the state is always in the interest of Catholicism and the Church, but is external to it.
Click to expand...
Fascism isn’t Catholic or Christian. Keep politics out of religion and religion out of politics.
 
Boy_Wonder said:
Fascism isn’t Catholic or Christian. Keep politics out of religion and religion out of politics.
Click to expand...
Slogans are seldom sufficient if your goal is truth and virtue.

In one sense, I agree. There should be some separation. Bishops ruling territories as statesmen would not be a good idea. But religion, whatever the sort, is an integral part of human civilization in every corner of the globe. If politics is the ordering of man’s public life for the common good, it is impossible to keep the two entirely separate.
 
I think an ideal vision of Christendom would include a valuation of human’s souls on a higher level than social justice.

Social justice should be valued at a high level but staying out of Hell trumps everything!
 
JustinMissouri said:
The ideal state:
  • suppresses public manifestations of heresy and blasphemy
  • does not regulate the private religious beliefs and practices of individuals and families
  • gives pride of place in laws and customs to the Roman Church (holidays should be Catholic, special tax status for the Church, etc.), but conversion is not forced
  • recognizes the principle of subsidiarity - that which can be done at the local level must be done at the local level
  • enacts only laws in conformity with the natural law as interpreted by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, if those laws are, a) actually enforceable, b) ‘worth’ the cost of enforcing, c) do more good than harm
  • strictly guards private property rights and embraces an economic system of distributism; neither ‘capitalism’ nor ‘socialism’ but that ideal which allows for the private ownership of some land in most every family
  • protects the dignity of human life (from conception) to natural death (except in certain capital cases where the death penalty may rightfully be a resort)
  • adheres to the ‘just war theory’ and embraces moral norms in foreign policy and war
Click to expand...
Love this concept!!! I need to see a little sanity when trying to understand our politically insane climate here in the U.S.!! I would love for you to explain distributism to me in layman’s terms if you could. Never heard of it.
 
I think the OP might want to do a little more deep reading on just what political role the pope had even in the middle ages. The pope never really had continental dictator powers, that’s protestant propaganda talking.

In the heydey of Christendom, the pope’s influence on kings had more to do with the fact that the populace were catholic and expected their liege to be a catholic in good standing. Kings who strayed from the faith risk the legitimacy of their reign. This was a very effective system of checks and balances on the otherwise almost unlimited power of a sovereign monarch in the days of an illiterate populace.

And the papacy used that influence to keep kings in check.

Sounds good to me!
 
BookofJames said:
Love this concept!!! I need to see a little sanity when trying to understand our politically insane climate here in the U.S.!! I would love for you to explain distributism to me in layman’s terms if you could. Never heard of it.
Click to expand...
I do not purport to be an expert in the field of economics [we have too many talking heads in society that are ‘experts’ on everything; some modesty is required] but from my understanding distributism: a) The family is the center of society and that state is directed to its good, b) The ideal is that each family would own property, even if only a little, for their own good.

Trade unions of today foment class warfare; trade GUILDS are more in line with traditional social teaching, for it brings together men of all ‘classes’ in a particular profession.

Distributism is more a theory than something that has ever existed in practice. Especially with urbanization and the move from an agrarian society to an industrial one. In our present system of ‘wage labor’ we might say that communism and capitalism are even two sides of the same coin! Man is made a slave in his servitude and he is taken from the land and his family.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top