FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Pro-Papal States Saints and Martyrs
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
(11-02-2020, 11:05 PM)Naproxen Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-02-2020, 09:43 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]In fact, even tho' Victor Emmanuel was excommunicated for his war against the Papal States, his excommunication was lifted on his deathbed, he received Last Rites, and died in the bosom of the Church.

This is why people have lost respect for the Church. In recent times, to include the instance you pointed out, it has acted weak. Nobody wants to be a follower of a weak authority. The Pope at the time should have refused lifting the King's excommunication until the Pope was restored to all of his former lands. Had the Pope let the King sweat in terror on his deathbed; to die without the last rites (probably be damned to Hell), and be denied a Christian burial would have been a great power move to show the world that the Church does not play around. Weak move, your Holiness.

Any church or leader that would put temporal power over the salvation of a soul is not acting in the image of Christ.  I'm not familiar with the story, but if the Pope lifted the excommunication on the king's deathbed, without a renunciation of political differences, then the Pope did the right thing.  If the only moral option makes us look weak, then we must choose and accept looking weak.  If the Pope had chosen to cast a soul into hell for the sake of his temporal image, it would have been a grave moral evil and scandalous to the veracity of the papacy.
(11-03-2020, 10:07 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]Any church or leader that would put temporal power over the salvation of a soul is not acting in the image of Christ.  I'm not familiar with the story, but if the Pope lifted the excommunication on the king's deathbed, without a renunciation of political differences, then the Pope did the right thing.  If the only moral option makes us look weak, then we must choose and accept looking weak.  If the Pope had chosen to cast a soul into hell for the sake of his temporal image, it would have been a grave moral evil and scandalous to the veracity of the papacy.

Why are you ignoring the souls that could have been saved from the 1860s to the present day if the Papal States still existed? Think of the missionary activities that could be funded by the Holy See via Papal State taxation. Think of how more dioceses and parishes could keep more their own tithes because the Holy See could fund itself via taxation. Think of the millions of Catholics in the Papal States who would have been ruled by an absolute Catholic monarchy. Think of the lack of homosexual civil-unions that are now found in Italy. Think of the lack of abortion (especially taxpayer-funded) that is now found in Italy. What about those souls? A king is unlikely to make it to Heaven anyway, due to his wealth. Why bend over backward for a rich king who refuses to make amends for his wrongs (taking the Papal States from the Pope). Last I checked, absolution requires restitution for some sings. I'm sure stealing land would be one of those sins.

Political "differences"?
(11-03-2020, 04:19 PM)Naproxen Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-03-2020, 10:07 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]Any church or leader that would put temporal power over the salvation of a soul is not acting in the image of Christ.  I'm not familiar with the story, but if the Pope lifted the excommunication on the king's deathbed, without a renunciation of political differences, then the Pope did the right thing.  If the only moral option makes us look weak, then we must choose and accept looking weak.  If the Pope had chosen to cast a soul into hell for the sake of his temporal image, it would have been a grave moral evil and scandalous to the veracity of the papacy.

Why are you ignoring the souls that could have been saved from the 1860s to the present day if the Papal States still existed? Think of the missionary activities that could be funded by the Holy See via Papal State taxation. Think of how more dioceses and parishes could keep more their own tithes because the Holy See could fund itself via taxation. Think of the millions of Catholics in the Papal States who would have been ruled by an absolute Catholic monarchy. Think of the lack of homosexual civil-unions that are now found in Italy. Think of the lack of abortion (especially taxpayer-funded) that is now found in Italy. What about those souls? A king is unlikely to make it to Heaven anyway, due to his wealth. Why bend over backward for a rich king who refuses to make amends for his wrongs (taking the Papal States from the Pope). Last I checked, absolution requires restitution for some sings. I'm sure stealing land would be one of those sins.

Political "differences"?


We're Catholics.  We don't believe the end justifies the means, but your list is basically suggesting that.

Christ did not institute the papacy to be a temporal leader or a political monarch.  There's a reason the canons forbid clerics from holding political office.  The papacy you romanticize is the antithesis of what Christ instituted it.
(11-03-2020, 10:31 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]Christ did not institute the papacy to be a temporal leader or a political monarch.
 

So you are condemning the Papacy from 754 to 1870? I take it that you wouldn't have taken up arms in defense of the Papal States? Would you have fought against the Papal States?

(11-03-2020, 10:31 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]There's a reason the canons forbid clerics from holding political office. 

That's some novus BS that JPII pulled in 1980 and had codified in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. The real reason he did it was to sweep under the rug the fact that priests had become far-left wing. I don't know of any right-wing priests in politics post-Vatican II.

You are against the 1,000-year-old traditions of the clergy exercising civil power. Why was the Church wrong for so long and why are you right?
I strongly recommend you to find a decent history book on the subject before making assumptions and creating flawed theories, like how they would use taxes to fund missionaries, ignoring basic infrastructure any state has do deal with.
Frankly, I don't understand this obsession you have about the Papal States.
(11-04-2020, 03:43 AM)Naproxen Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-03-2020, 10:31 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]Christ did not institute the papacy to be a temporal leader or a political monarch.
 

So you are condemning the Papacy from 754 to 1870? I take it that you wouldn't have taken up arms in defense of the Papal States? Would you have fought against the Papal States?

(11-03-2020, 10:31 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]There's a reason the canons forbid clerics from holding political office. 

That's some novus BS that JPII pulled in 1980 and had codified in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. The real reason he did it was to sweep under the rug the fact that priests had become far-left wing. I don't know of any right-wing priests in politics post-Vatican II.

You are against the 1,000-year-old traditions of the clergy exercising civil power. Why was the Church wrong for so long and why are you right?

I wouldn't take up arms for any country, so no, I wouldn't for the Papal States, but not because it was the Papal States.  I wouldn't have fought against them either.

I'm actually referring to canons that far outdate the Papal States.  Canon 7 of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon: "We have decreed that those who have once been enrolled among the clergy, or have been made monks, shall accept neither a military charge nor any secular dignity; and if they shall presume to do so and not repent in such wise as to turn again to that which they had first chosen for the love of God, they shall be anathematized." and Canons 81 and 83 of the Apostolic Canons: "We have said that a bishop or presbyter must not give himself to the management of public affairs, but devote himself to ecclesiastical business. Let him then be persuaded to do so, or let him be deposed, for no man can serve two masters, according to the Lord's declaration." and "If a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall serve in the army, and wish to retain both the Roman magistracy and the priestly office, let him be deposed; for the things of Cæsar belong to Cæsar, and those of God to God."  Canon 16 of the Council of Carthage in context, although taken by itself, it is somewhat ambiguous: "That no bishop, presbyter or deacon should be a conductor; and that Readers should take wives; and that the clergy should abstain from usury; and at what age they or virgins should be consecrated.

Likewise it seemed good that bishops, presbyters, and deacons should not be conductors or procurators; nor seek their food by any base and vile business, for they should remember how it is written, No man fighting for God cumbers himself with worldly affairs."

The 1000 year tradition of clergy exercising civil power in the middle ages stands in contrast to the 1000 year tradition of the Church of the Apostolic Age which preceded it.  You're doing what Latins do commonly: you trash an apostolic tradition in order to justify adopting something novel, and then 1000 years later, have the audacity to call it tradition.  A long-standing abuse does not become tradition just because it went unchallenged. 

Apostolic tradition is clearly opposed to clergy holding political office or acting as temporal rulers.  If you are for the Papal States, you are against Tradition.  It's really quite simple. You asked why the Church was wrong and I'm right. I ask you why the Church in the first millenium was wrong and why the Papal States were right.
(11-04-2020, 11:28 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-04-2020, 03:43 AM)Naproxen Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-03-2020, 10:31 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]Christ did not institute the papacy to be a temporal leader or a political monarch.
 

So you are condemning the Papacy from 754 to 1870? I take it that you wouldn't have taken up arms in defense of the Papal States? Would you have fought against the Papal States?

(11-03-2020, 10:31 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]There's a reason the canons forbid clerics from holding political office. 

That's some novus BS that JPII pulled in 1980 and had codified in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. The real reason he did it was to sweep under the rug the fact that priests had become far-left wing. I don't know of any right-wing priests in politics post-Vatican II.

You are against the 1,000-year-old traditions of the clergy exercising civil power. Why was the Church wrong for so long and why are you right?

I wouldn't take up arms for any country, so no, I wouldn't for the Papal States, but not because it was the Papal States.  I wouldn't have fought against them either.

I'm actually referring to canons that far outdate the Papal States.  Canon 7 of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon: "We have decreed that those who have once been enrolled among the clergy, or have been made monks, shall accept neither a military charge nor any secular dignity; and if they shall presume to do so and not repent in such wise as to turn again to that which they had first chosen for the love of God, they shall be anathematized." and Canons 81 and 83 of the Apostolic Canons: "We have said that a bishop or presbyter must not give himself to the management of public affairs, but devote himself to ecclesiastical business. Let him then be persuaded to do so, or let him be deposed, for no man can serve two masters, according to the Lord's declaration." and "If a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall serve in the army, and wish to retain both the Roman magistracy and the priestly office, let him be deposed; for the things of Cæsar belong to Cæsar, and those of God to God."  Canon 16 of the Council of Carthage in context, although taken by itself, it is somewhat ambiguous: "That no bishop, presbyter or deacon should be a conductor; and that Readers should take wives; and that the clergy should abstain from usury; and at what age they or virgins should be consecrated.

Likewise it seemed good that bishops, presbyters, and deacons should not be conductors or procurators; nor seek their food by any base and vile business, for they should remember how it is written, No man fighting for God cumbers himself with worldly affairs."

The 1000 year tradition of clergy exercising civil power in the middle ages stands in contrast to the 1000 year tradition of the Church of the Apostolic Age which preceded it.  You're doing what Latins do commonly: you trash an apostolic tradition in order to justify adopting something novel, and then 1000 years later, have the audacity to call it tradition.  A long-standing abuse does not become tradition just because it went unchallenged. 

Apostolic tradition is clearly opposed to clergy holding political office or acting as temporal rulers.  If you are for the Papal States, you are against Tradition.  It's really quite simple.  You asked why the Church was wrong and I'm right.  I ask you why the Church in the first millenium was wrong and why the Papal States were right.
The Pope is the exception to this rule because he is the Vicar of Christ the King, and the Master of the Palace in the Kingdom of God; as well as to prevent Caesaropapism, national-exceptionalisms, and supranational ideologies from taking hold in the world.
(11-03-2020, 01:36 AM)Naproxen Wrote: [ -> ]Massacring entire towns during war wasn't unusual back then and what proof do you have that it was primarily due to the townspeople's faith? Weren't the Piedmontese soldiers Catholic? And fireworks on Good Friday? That won't cut it.
Massacring civilians isn't something a Catholic does, it wasn't just killing citizens, it was raping women inside churches and shooting women kneeling before crosses and/or saying the Rosary, as you can clearly read from source I provided. And wasn't just fireworks on Good Friday, there are accounts desecrations of churches in Rome and elsewhere at other times; although the accounts I have been able to find so far of these crimes are scant.
(11-04-2020, 11:28 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]The 1000 year tradition of clergy exercising civil power in the middle ages stands in contrast to the 1000 year tradition of the Church of the Apostolic Age which preceded it.  You're doing what Latins do commonly: you trash an apostolic tradition in order to justify adopting something novel, and then 1000 years later, have the audacity to call it tradition.  A long-standing abuse does not become tradition just because it went unchallenged. 

And you're doing what many Easterns do commonly: you trash the Latin Church.
(11-04-2020, 03:09 PM)MaryLover Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-03-2020, 01:36 AM)Naproxen Wrote: [ -> ]Massacring entire towns during war wasn't unusual back then and what proof do you have that it was primarily due to the townspeople's faith? Weren't the Piedmontese soldiers Catholic? And fireworks on Good Friday? That won't cut it.
Massacring civilians isn't something a Catholic does, it wasn't just killing citizens, it was raping women inside churches and shooting women kneeling before crosses and/or saying the Rosary, as you can clearly read from source I provided. And wasn't just fireworks on Good Friday, there are accounts desecrations of churches in Rome and elsewhere at other times; although the accounts I have been able to find so far of these crimes are scant.

The Protestant mercenaries who sacked Rome in 1527 commited most their attrocities fueled by their rage against the Papacy and the Catholic Faith, so in this case you can say this was done in odium fidei, even so I hardly believe there's any case of beatification of any victim of this period. In the specific case you mention, the Italian unification, could these acts be considered in odium fidei, or were they motivated by pure bloodlust? Sure some Piedmontese and Garibaldini were anticlericals, even so...
Pages: 1 2 3