Obeying ceasar
#31
I lost a friend to a debate over this last night.
Reply
#32
(12-06-2011, 06:50 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(12-05-2011, 10:31 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(12-05-2011, 06:25 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote: This is an error of Wycliff, Hus, and certain early Protestant groups and has been definitively condemned by the Church.

Exact wording?

In the chapter of De Laicis I linked to earlier, when stating the Church has definitively condemned this error, St. Robert cites to the session of the Council of Constance which definitively condemned the following errors:

15. Nobody is a civil lord or a prelate or a bishop while he is in mortal sin.

28. Just as a prince or a lord does not keep the title of his office while he is in mortal sin, except in name and equivocally, so it is with a pope, bishop or priest while he has fallen into mortal sin.

29. Everyone habitually in mortal sin lacks dominion of any kind and the licit use of an action, even if it be good in its kind.

31. In order to have true secular dominion, the lord must be in a state of righteousness. Therefore nobody in mortal sin is lord of anything.

Except that these errors are not what the original poster is asserting. These errors are condemning the notion that a true ruler cannot be in the state of mortal sin. If this were true, then a good Catholic ruler like, say, Mary I would have lost her throne if she fell into mortal sin, which is ridiculous. On the contrary, the original poster is stating that the secular governments that succeeded Catholic states are illegitimate. The state of grace (or lack thereof) of such a secular government's leaders has nothing to do with this discussion.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)