Pro-Papal States Saints and Martyrs
(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.

Messages In This Thread
RE: Pro-Papal States Saints and Martyrs - by Melkite - 11-04-2020, 11:28 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)