Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

What form of govt. do you think is best?


Resurrexi

What form of government do you think is best?  

98 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

[quote name='jezic' date='Feb 12 2006, 09:04 PM']um question, why do we need to be liberated?

People have suggested that our democratic republic is liberating.

I wonder from what?
[right][snapback]885122[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

From having no say in the political lot of your nation. From tyranny without alternatives ("no taxation without representation"). From many things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 12 2006, 06:07 PM']ever heard of Guy Fawkes?

edit: oh, and I was talking to Sam (EENS) and he said that if he werent temporarily banned, he would vote "Catholic Monarchy"
[right][snapback]884994[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Sam's banned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]From having no say in the political lot of your nation. From tyranny without alternatives ("no taxation without representation"). From many things.[/quote]

The citizens should have no say in the government, although the government must fear the citizens and work for them. The duties of having say in the government go to the educated class: The nobles and the bishops.

[quote]and what would a Catholic republic be?[/quote]

A Catholic republic would be a republic (not a democracy) that has completely Catholic constitution, Catholic laws, and no religious freedom for non-Catholics.

[quote]um question, why do we need to be liberated?

People have suggested that our democratic republic is liberating.

I wonder from what?[/quote]

There is nothing to be liberated from. The king is a servant of the people.

[quote]Well, you're never gifted with infallibility in anything you write, so I'll just ignore you altogether.[/quote]

Is there anything that says I can't be Pope?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until you are Pope, you have no infallibility in what you declare because you declare it.

And you and I both know (and we all here) that the Pope on his own terms cannot be infallible whenever.

However, what he says you owe an assent of mind and will. Vatican I states infallibly that his authority is in more than [i]Ex Cathedra[/i] statements and anyone who declares otherwise is anathema.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]# So, then,
    * if anyone says that
          o the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
                + not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
                + not only in matters of
                      # faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
                      [b]# discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
          o he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
          o this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:[/b]
      let him be anathema.
[/quote]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]The citizens should have no say in the government, although the government must fear the citizens and work for them. [/quote]

Riiiiiiight. Because, you know, it's not like the government concerns the citizens. Why should they have a say in anything?

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 12 2006, 09:00 PM']what were the Papal States catagorized as 300 years ago?
[right][snapback]885110[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Considering that it is a moot point, because they don't exist any longer, I will humor you. The Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State has existed at least from the 1929, with the treaty with Italy. This was accepted by the papacy.

300 years ago, the Papal States were not a Theocracy. They were not ruled by the pope in any means other than temporally. That is why the tiara that the Popes wore was three tiered. Temporal, Spiritual, and Pastoral. They were separate. While the Popes were spiritual and pastoral leaders, those were separate distinctions. This is widely accepted as being the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Riiiiiiight. Because, you know, it's not like the government concerns the citizens. Why should they have a say in anything?[/quote]

the citizens are too uneducated to take part in the government. A future heir to the throne would have been studying his whole life to become king. A bishop is also very educated and has spent most of his life learning how to be a bishop. The same does not go for some dude off the street who people choose to be "president".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 12 2006, 09:16 PM']Why am I arguing with a 12 year old?

:hehe:
[right][post="885145"][/post][/right][/quote]


Oh it's cute to see you rustle little Tommy's hair and pinch his cheeks.

He is so cute when he gets all in a huff......let's humor him and see what other things we can teach him. He needs to learn this stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]They were not ruled by the pope in any means other than temporally.[/quote]

who was their "real leader" then?

[quote]That is why the tiara that the Popes [b]wore[/b] was three tiered.[/quote]

The Papal Tiara is not a thing of the past. The next Pope could choose to have the great, good and wonderful Papal Coronation, and take the great Papal Oath. And, of course, they could decide to wear the tiara.

[quote]That is why the tiara that the Popes [b]wore[/b] was three tiered. Temporal, Spiritual, and Pastoral. [/quote]

that "wore" should be a "wear".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 12 2006, 09:25 PM']that "wore" should be a "wear".
[right][snapback]885161[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, wore (past tense) is correct. The last three popes have forgone coronation. It is acceptable to state it in the past tense.

But that's ok little Tommy, I will cut you some slack, you're still learning your grammar in 6th grade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]But that's ok little Tommy, I will cut you some slack, you're still learning your grammar in 6th grade. [/quote]

I really dont appreciate that, SIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 12 2006, 09:57 PM']I really dont appreciate that, SIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  >:(
[right][snapback]885207[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

How about acting your age then. My grammar was proper. Your understanding of my use of the English language was incorrect.

Your obstinant stance is not becoming of someone in grammar school. You cannot possibly understand the nuance of what you are attempting to discuss. How about you keep more of an open mind and try and learn something from those of us who have the proper knowledge to teach you and catechize you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...