What form of govt. do you think is best?

[Resurrexi]

[quote]Citing the Papal States is also not relevant, as they corresponded to an entirely different world order. Not only is the world essentially a different world today, but the Church's social doctrine has developed.[/quote]

The teachings of the Chuch are the same and have always been the same and will never change. The church is not of this world.

[quote]Her enunciation of religious freedom, authentically set out at the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, is not yours to judge as "horrid and evil".[/quote]

Vatican II was a Pastoral council, like the Councils of Baltimore; not a Dogmatic council, like the Council of Trent.

[qfnol31]

Da, but it did declare infallible truths.

God IS. I myself, though not gifted with infallibility, have spoken (written) an infallible truth.

[Cam42]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 12 2006, 08:41 PM']well, excuse me, but who were the Papal States run by?
[right][snapback]885080[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Considering that Vatican City is the last remnant of the Papal States, it is temporally run by Edmund Cardinal Szoka, he is the governor. Angelo Card. Sodano is the Secretary of State. Pope Benedict XVI is Head of State.

However, it has never been what you claim it to be. What Vatican City is, is an elective monarchy. There is no theocracy there. Sorry.

[Era Might]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 12 2006, 08:48 PM']The teachings of the Chuch are the same and have always been the same and will never change. The church is not of this world.
Vatican II was a Pastoral council, like the Councils of Baltimore; not a Dogmatic council, like the Council of Trent.
[right][snapback]885089[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Church's social doctrine develops on two fronts: with respect to a greater appreciation of revelation, and with respect to the ever changing world around us.

As for Vatican II, you may want to check your facts. It issued two "Dogmatic Constitutions", namely, "Dei Verbum" and "Lumen Gentium".

Furthermore, as Pope Benedict XVI explains:

[quote]Over and against both tendencies, before all else, it must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him. ...That also with regards to its contents, Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points.

It is impossible for a Catholic to take a position for or against Trent or Vatican I. Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly the two previous councils. It is likewise impossible to decide in favour of Trent and Vatican I but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upheld the other councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called "traditionalism", also in its extreme form. ...Every partisan choice destroys the whole (the very history of the Church) which can only exist as an indivisible unity.

--"The Ratzinger Report", page 28[/quote]

Edited February 13, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Feb 12 2006, 08:48 PM']I could be wrong, but it seems to me this is just coming from a theological standpoint.  I'm not too sure, but I do not think this says absolutely no Bishops, etc, in the government...Only that doctrine does not give that place.
[right][snapback]885088[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Bishops do not have a political vocation. The Church's assocation with the political sphere is important, of course, because she must try to help mold it according to the dictates of Divine and natural law. But the political sphere is fundamentally distinct. This is why, for example, during the various Inquisitions, the accused was investigated by the Church, but handed over to the State for civil action.

[qfnol31]

That I agree with. It was the quote I think did not.

[Resurrexi]

[quote]As for Vatican II, you may want to check your facts. It issued two "Dogmatic Constitutions", namely, "Dei Verbum" and "Lumen Gentium".[/quote]

the "Dogmatic Constitutions" have a misleading name.

[quote]The Church's social doctrine develops on two fronts: with respect to a greater appreciation of revelation, and with respect to the ever changing world around us.[/quote]

I want an infallable source of that from before Vatican II.

[quote]Furthermore, as Pope Benedict XVI explains:[/quote]

His Holieness was not gifted with infalliblity when he wrote that.

[quote]Da, but it did declare infallible truths. [/quote]

Vatican II only restated infallible truths.

[quote]However, it has never been what you claim it to be. What Vatican City is, is an elective monarchy. There is no theocracy there. Sorry.[/quote]

what were the Papal States catagorized as 300 years ago?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 12 2006, 08:00 PM']the "Dogmatic Constitutions" have a misleading name.[/quote]

Possibly.

[quote]His Holieness was not gifted with infalliblity when he wrote that.[/quote]

Ja again, but you owe a religious assent of mind and will to His Holiness.
[quote]Vatican II only restated infallible truths.[/quote]

Possibly, again, but they are infallible nonetheless.

[Era Might]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 12 2006, 09:00 PM']His Holieness was not gifted with infalliblity when he wrote that.
[right][snapback]885110[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

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

Edited February 13, 2006 by Era Might

[jezic]

um question, why do we need to be liberated?

People have suggested that our democratic republic is liberating.

I wonder from what?

[jezic]

and what would a Catholic republic be?

[Era Might]

[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.

[catholicinsd]

[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?

[Resurrexi]

[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?

[qfnol31]

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.

[qfnol31]

[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]

[Era Might]

[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?

[Era Might]

Why am I arguing with a 12 year old?

Edited May 29, 2008 by Era Might

[Cam42]

[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.

[Resurrexi]

[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".