Pro-Papal States Saints and Martyrs
#21
(11-04-2020, 02:59 PM)MaryLover Wrote: 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.

The canons are pretty clear, and make no exception for the pope. The Papal States are not the same thing as the Kingdom of God (and it is probably sacrilegious to equate them in such a way); therefore, it is flawed logic to attempt to justify papal temporal power by linking it to God's kingdom. It's also ironic to suggest it prevents caesaropapism when it turns the pope into a caesar.
Reply
#22
(11-04-2020, 04:07 PM)Ioannes_L Wrote:
(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.

But you did adopt something novel and call it tradition when it wasn't one.  What kind of response do you expect?

I'm sorry if you think it's trashing the Latin church.  Is it a greater insult to Latins to challenge an erroneous view, or to not challenge it and let them continue in error?
Reply
#23
(11-04-2020, 09:32 AM)Ioannes_L Wrote: 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.
You need to find a decent history book. The Holy See's main source of revenue was the Papal States.

(11-04-2020, 09:32 AM)Ioannes_L Wrote: Frankly, I don't understand this obsession you have about the Papal States.
Nice attempt at gaslighting but me posting about the Papal States in a thread about the Papal States isn't an "obsession".



(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: 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."

Interesting. That sounds ex cathedra
Reply
#24
(11-04-2020, 04:21 PM)Ioannes_L Wrote: 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.
Interesting, I wonder why that is?
[Image: Blessed_Virgin_Mary_Holding_Jesus_with_S...abriel.jpg]
Glory to God
and
Hail Mary!
Reply
#25
(11-04-2020, 04:48 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-04-2020, 04:07 PM)Ioannes_L Wrote:
(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.

But you did adopt something novel and call it tradition when it wasn't one.  What kind of response do you expect?

I'm sorry if you think it's trashing the Latin church.  Is it a greater insult to Latins to challenge an erroneous view, or to not challenge it and let them continue in error?

And the East was justified in their innovation from Apostolic tradition of the near apotheosis of the Emperor, such that he was anointed with a sacred ceremony in the altar similar to that by which a priest is ordained, such that he could appoint or depose Patriarchs of Constantinople at his will? Please, desist this foolish potshotting of East vs West. We all have our strengths and weaknesses and we are called to cover the weakness of our brethren and share our strengths with the other in charity. How does this help the unity of the body of Christ..?
[-] The following 3 users Like PilgrimMichelangelo's post:
  • Ioannes_L, jovan66102, MaryLover
Reply
#26
(11-07-2020, 01:57 AM)PilgrimMichelangelo Wrote:
(11-04-2020, 04:48 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-04-2020, 04:07 PM)Ioannes_L Wrote:
(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.

But you did adopt something novel and call it tradition when it wasn't one.  What kind of response do you expect?

I'm sorry if you think it's trashing the Latin church.  Is it a greater insult to Latins to challenge an erroneous view, or to not challenge it and let them continue in error?

And the East was justified in their innovation from Apostolic tradition of the near apotheosis of the Emperor, such that he was anointed with a sacred ceremony in the altar similar to that by which a priest is ordained, such that he could appoint or depose Patriarchs of Constantinople at his will? Please, desist this foolish potshotting of East vs West. We all have our strengths and weaknesses and we are called to cover the weakness of our brethren and share our strengths with the other in charity. How does this help the unity of the body of Christ..?


Whatever.  I've made my case and, imo, it's pretty open and closed.  There is no justification for a papal temporal monarchy.  It's contrary to canons agreed upon by the Church during the first millenium, and saying it's justified because the pope is 'a special breed' does not counter the weight of the canonical argument.  If you want to go on idolizing a political papacy to your eternal detriment, that's your problem.
Reply
#27
Ok... Naproxen has been banned, but if you're reading this pal, I wasn't being rude about finding a good book.
The main source of income of the Holy See were the States, but even so, the pope didn't paid for Jesuit missions and such, this was paid by real Catholic nations who sought to save many souls while expanding their earthly power. And after these nations lost such religious piety, societies had to get their own money to pay for missions, with the Holy See giving aproval but no coin.
Ite ad Ioseph
Reply
#28
(11-05-2020, 09:05 PM)MaryLover Wrote:
(11-04-2020, 04:21 PM)Ioannes_L Wrote: 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.
Interesting, I wonder why that is?

No clue.
This sack of Rome was made against the faith, churches were robbed, priests were attacked, they brought horses and low-life women to desacrate the new and unfinished St. Peter's basilica... these Germans were quite eager to reproduce what their forefathers did to the dying Roman Empire centuries before. It's interesting that there's no movement for any beatification, not even for those brave Swiss guards who stood in position and died to save the Pope.
But in the end this is the work of Providence, if a cult died after a while or never fully developed the Holy See didn't pushed forward... that's why they waited for at least 50+ years before analysing most of the causes of saints, not 5-10 years like nowadays.
Ite ad Ioseph
[-] The following 1 user Likes Ioannes_L's post:
  • HailGilbert
Reply
#29
What about the fact that the Italian government didn't recognize Sacramental Marriages? 

I guess what I'm really asking is, did the Garibaldini and Piedmontese manage to arouse the Italians (I would call them sheeple, but it would be an insult to sheep to compare them to those reptiles.) to turn against their own Papacy?

Frankly, if I was living in Italy at that time, and got word that one of my Anti-Papal-States peers found out that their Sacramental weddings wouldn't be recognized by the new government, I'd go up to them and start laughing right in their faces!
[Image: Blessed_Virgin_Mary_Holding_Jesus_with_S...abriel.jpg]
Glory to God
and
Hail Mary!
Reply
#30
Truth be told I had no idea this happened, but if so, nothing out of the ordinary for the time, specially when you consider that revolutionary France made civil marriage the only one with importance.

And yes, Vittorio Emmanuele and Garibaldi... mostly Garibaldi, were able to attract a considerable ammount of people to their cause to reunite Italy as one, to expell foreign powers who used to interfere in the peninsula... the list goes on and on. As for going against the Papacy, this happened two or three times before, one during Pius IX reign.
Ite ad Ioseph
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)