Resurrexi Posted February 13, 2006 Author Share Posted February 13, 2006 [quote]The Church rejects a theocracy, as you define it ("A government ruled by Ecclesiastical Authorities"):[/quote] what do you call Vatican City or the Former Papal States? Theocracy is good and within the teachings of the Church. If you mean the definition of Theocracy to be "a government in which Catholicism is the offocial religion and there is no separation of Church and state" then it is very much supported by the Church. I believe religious freedom is a horrid and evil principal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 [quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 12 2006, 06:28 PM']what do you call Vatican City or the Former Papal States? Theocracy is good and within the teachings of the Church. If you mean the definition of Theocracy to be "a government in which Catholicism is the offocial religion and there is no separation of Church and state" then it is very much supported by the Church. I believe religious freedom is a horrid and evil principal. [right][snapback]885064[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Vatican city is not ran by the pope, he appoints the government leaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted February 13, 2006 Author Share Posted February 13, 2006 [quote]Vatican city is not ran by the pope, he appoints the government leaders. [/quote] well, excuse me, but who were the Papal States run by? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 (edited) [quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 12 2006, 08:28 PM']what do you call Vatican City or the Former Papal States? Theocracy is good and within the teachings of the Church. If you mean the definition of Theocracy to be "a government in which Catholicism is the offocial religion and there is no separation of Church and state" then it is very much supported by the Church. I believe religious freedom is a horrid and evil principal. [right][snapback]885064[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Vatican City is not relevant here. It is a special arrangement made with the Italian government so that the institutional Church can regulate her affairs. It is not a nation of real political and social circumstance. Citing the Papal States is also not relevant, as they corresponded to an entirely different world order. Not only is the world essentially a different world today, but the Church's social doctrine has developed. Her enunciation of religious freedom, authentically set out at the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, is not yours to judge as "horrid and evil". Edited February 13, 2006 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 [quote name='Pope Benedict' date=' via Era Might']This is where Catholic social doctrine has its place: it has no intention of giving the Church power over the State.[/quote] I could be wrong, but it seems to me this is just coming from a theological standpoint. I'm not too sure, but I do not think this says absolutely no Bishops, etc, in the government...Only that doctrine does not give that place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted February 13, 2006 Author Share Posted February 13, 2006 [quote]Citing the Papal States is also not relevant, as they corresponded to an entirely different world order. Not only is the world essentially a different world today, but the Church's social doctrine has developed.[/quote] The teachings of the Chuch are the same and have always been the same and will never change. The church is not of this world. [quote]Her enunciation of religious freedom, authentically set out at the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, is not yours to judge as "horrid and evil".[/quote] Vatican II was a Pastoral council, like the Councils of Baltimore; not a Dogmatic council, like the Council of Trent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Da, but it did declare infallible truths. God IS. I myself, though not gifted with infallibility, have spoken (written) an infallible truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 [quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 12 2006, 08:41 PM']well, excuse me, but who were the Papal States run by? [right][snapback]885080[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Considering that Vatican City is the last remnant of the Papal States, it is temporally run by Edmund Cardinal Szoka, he is the governor. Angelo Card. Sodano is the Secretary of State. Pope Benedict XVI is Head of State. However, it has never been what you claim it to be. What Vatican City is, is an elective monarchy. There is no theocracy there. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 (edited) [quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 12 2006, 08:48 PM']The teachings of the Chuch are the same and have always been the same and will never change. The church is not of this world. Vatican II was a Pastoral council, like the Councils of Baltimore; not a Dogmatic council, like the Council of Trent. [right][snapback]885089[/snapback][/right] [/quote] The Church's social doctrine develops on two fronts: with respect to a greater appreciation of revelation, and with respect to the ever changing world around us. As for Vatican II, you may want to check your facts. It issued two "Dogmatic Constitutions", namely, "Dei Verbum" and "Lumen Gentium". Furthermore, as Pope Benedict XVI explains: [quote]Over and against both tendencies, before all else, it must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him. ...That also with regards to its contents, Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points. It is impossible for a Catholic to take a position for or against Trent or Vatican I. Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly the two previous councils. It is likewise impossible to decide in favour of Trent and Vatican I but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upheld the other councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called "traditionalism", also in its extreme form. ...Every partisan choice destroys the whole (the very history of the Church) which can only exist as an indivisible unity. --"The Ratzinger Report", page 28[/quote] Edited February 13, 2006 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 [quote name='qfnol31' date='Feb 12 2006, 08:48 PM']I could be wrong, but it seems to me this is just coming from a theological standpoint. I'm not too sure, but I do not think this says absolutely no Bishops, etc, in the government...Only that doctrine does not give that place. [right][snapback]885088[/snapback][/right] [/quote] The Bishops do not have a political vocation. The Church's assocation with the political sphere is important, of course, because she must try to help mold it according to the dictates of Divine and natural law. But the political sphere is fundamentally distinct. This is why, for example, during the various Inquisitions, the accused was investigated by the Church, but handed over to the State for civil action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 That I agree with. It was the quote I think did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted February 13, 2006 Author Share Posted February 13, 2006 [quote]As for Vatican II, you may want to check your facts. It issued two "Dogmatic Constitutions", namely, "Dei Verbum" and "Lumen Gentium".[/quote] the "Dogmatic Constitutions" have a misleading name. [quote]The Church's social doctrine develops on two fronts: with respect to a greater appreciation of revelation, and with respect to the ever changing world around us.[/quote] I want an infallable source of that from before Vatican II. [quote]Furthermore, as Pope Benedict XVI explains:[/quote] His Holieness was not gifted with infalliblity when he wrote that. [quote]Da, but it did declare infallible truths. [/quote] Vatican II only restated infallible truths. [quote]However, it has never been what you claim it to be. What Vatican City is, is an elective monarchy. There is no theocracy there. Sorry.[/quote] what were the Papal States catagorized as 300 years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 [quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 12 2006, 08:00 PM']the "Dogmatic Constitutions" have a misleading name.[/quote] Possibly. [quote]His Holieness was not gifted with infalliblity when he wrote that.[/quote] Ja again, but you owe a religious assent of mind and will to His Holiness. [quote]Vatican II only restated infallible truths.[/quote] Possibly, again, but they are infallible nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 (edited) [quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 12 2006, 09:00 PM']His Holieness was not gifted with infalliblity when he wrote that. [right][snapback]885110[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Well, you're [i]never[/i] gifted with infallibility in [i]anything[/i] you write, so I'll just ignore you altogether. Edited February 13, 2006 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jezic Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 um question, why do we need to be liberated? People have suggested that our democratic republic is liberating. I wonder from what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now