Friday, June 18, 2010

The Church and State Relationship as Compared With That of Husband and Wife

Please also read "Popes Boniface VIII and Gregory VII vs. Antipope Leo XIII".


Let’s examine the doctrine of Pope Pius IX in light of definitions of some of the words he has used in his declarations on the matter.

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Condemned Proposition #55, Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra: "The Church is to be separated from the state, and the state from the Church." - CONDEMNED

What does it mean to be separate?

Separate (transitive verb)
To set or keep apart: disconnect, sever

So it is not permissible to say that the State should be kept apart from the Church or that the Church should be kept apart from the State.  They are not to be disconnected, not to be severed from one another.

So far this fits with the nature of proper matrimony, wherein both parties work together in unison for the welfare of the family; i.e. the husband and wife are not to be kept apart.

Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, 1864: "Nor do they blush openly and publicly to profess the maxim and principle of heretics from which arise so many perverse opinions and errors. For they (the heretics) repeat that the "ecclesiastical power is not by divine right distinct from, and independent of, the civil power, and that such distinction and independence cannot be preserved without the civil power's essential rights being assailed and usurped by the Church"

So it is not permissible to say that the Church’s power is not distinct from that of the State.

Distinct (adjective)
(Often followed by `from') not alike; different in nature or quality;

So far this fits with the proper nature of matrimony, wherein the roles of husband and wife are undeniably distinct from one another.  They are not alike, they are indeed of a different nature or quality.

Pope Pius IX also said that it is not permissible to say that the Church is not independent from the State.

Independent (adjective)
Free from external control and constraint

This also fits with the nature of matrimony.  Even as the husband and wife are not to be kept apart, though they are both distinct in their roles, the husband (Church) is not to be governed by the wife (State), but the State is to be governed by the Church, insofar as the Church is the head of the State (i.e. the husband is the head of the wife).

Ephesians 5:23-25:Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body.  Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.  Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it:”


How does the heretic Antipope Leo XIII contradict and undermine, in his subtle way, this beautiful arrangement that ought to exist between the Church and all States?

Antipope Leo XIII, Arcanum, #36, Feb. 10, 1880:  "Yet, no one doubts that Jesus Christ, the Founder of the Church, willed her sacred power to be distinct from the civil power, and each power to be free and unshackled in its own sphere ..."

In other words, he is saying that Jesus Christ willed the roles of husband and wife (the power of Church and that of State) to be distinct from each other (which is true), but he took a nose dive into heresy by saying that the both the husband and the wife should be free and unshackled, i.e. the husband is to be free and unshackled from the wife (i.e. Church not subject to the State, which is true) and the wife is to be free and unshackled from the husband (i.e. the State not subject to the Church – which is HERESY).


This does not mean that there must be a theocracy, wherein the Church IS the secular power, otherwise we would not longer have a valid analogy, since we would not have two parties, but one, the Church-State (the husband-wife?? – Yikes!).  This is not feasible, since Catholic doctrine teaches, for example, that it is unbefitting of clergy to take up arms (St. Thomas, Summa, II-II, Q. 40, Art. 2).  Therefore the Church requires a distinct secular authority that remains wholly subject to the ecclesiastical hierarchy.

What this means, however, is that the State must obey the Church when the Church exercises Her prerogative to command.  If the State (wife) does not obey the Church (husband), sin is committed.


Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Condemned Proposition #77, ex cathedra“In this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever.” - CONDEMNED

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Condemned Proposition #78, ex cathedra:  “Hence in certain regions of Catholic name, it has been laudably sanctioned by law that men immigrating there be allowed to have public exercises of any form of worship of their own.” - CONDEMNED


Likewise, the husband (the true Catholic religion) should be the only companion to the wife (State) to the exclusion of all other suitors (false religions), who should not be allowed even to attempt to become intimate with the wife (have their public false worship sanctioned).

Now how does Leo XIII contradict and undermine this chaste and faithful union that ought to exist between the Church and all States?

Antipope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, #36-37: "The Church, indeed, deems it unlawful to place the various forms of divine worship on the same footing as the true religion, but does not, on that account, condemn those rulers who, for the sake of securing some great good or of hindering some great evil, allow patiently custom or usage to be a kind of SANCTION for each kind of religion having its place in the State. And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, "Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will."

In uttering this teaching, Leo XIII has essentially given the green light to states schmoozing with false religions.  Or put it another way, he has said that “the husband doesn’t condemn the wife for schmoozing with other men, and patiently allows it as a kind of sanction of this behaviour as long as there is a ‘good reason’ for it.”

Ridiculous!  Harlotry!

Revision (June 21, 2010):
In French, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish, the word translated into English as "sanction" is translated as "tolerated".  It is quite possible that this is the word Leo XIII used.  If so, then he did not actually teach heresy in Immortale Dei (since toleration does not equal approval, whereas sanction does).  The Latin text will have the answer, but as it stands he still has no excuse for his words above in Arcanum,  as well as those in Rerum Novarum, the heresies he professed before allegedly being "elected", etc..



What Must You Do To Get to Heaven? 

4 comments:

  1. So one of the quotes you admit now was not heretical (but I would say that it would not be heretical even if it said "sanction", since it is all about interpretation and meaning), and perhaps you did not know, but the first quote you still accuse him for heresy, is also not heretical, but what is worse, it is also taken out of context. I hope you did not do this on purpose, or perhaps you really thought in your ignorance that the continuation of the Pope's words in Arcanum, #36 was not important? This is why interpretation is everything. And there are strict, charitable and supremely logical rules for interpreting correctly.

    Hanging a man with his words only because you don’t want to admit that they can rationally mean something other than a heresy is not the right way to go about it. All this does is reveal your bias, how you so badly want to fight heresy that you don’t care one bit about the reputations you destroy and the evil you commit while trying to do so.

    By the way, in the Immortale Dei #36-37 quote (that you now admit is not heretical if the word was "tolerate" instead of "sanction") all he said was that the Church does not condemn rulers that sanction (or tolerate) different religions to operate in the state. And this is true, since the Church does not condemn secular rulers ruling non-Catholic countries where there are different religions operating with permission or toleration (Germany would be a good example). And furthermore, many rulers themselves are not even Catholic, and therefore, it is even more true therefore that such rulers may "sanction" many different religions to operate. So there is no heresy here even if the word sanction was used.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Now what does Leo XIII actually say in Arcanum?

    “Yet, no one doubts that Jesus Christ, the Founder of the Church, willed her sacred power to be distinct from the civil power, and each power to be free and unshackled in its own sphere: [continuation not quoted by David:] with this condition, however --- a condition good for both, and of advantage to all men --- that union and concord should be maintained between them; and that on those questions which are, though in different ways, of common right and authority, the power to which secular matters have been entrusted should happily and becomingly depend on the other power which has in its charge the interests of heaven. In such arrangement and harmony is found not only the best line of action for each power, but also the… dignity of the one is exalted, and so long as religion is its guide it will never rule unjustly; while the other receives help of protection and defense for the public good of the faithful.” (Leo XIII in his Arcanum, Paragraph #36)

    Now, does Pope Leo XIII anywhere in the quote right above literally and actually say that the state has no limits at all to its power? And does Pope Leo XIII anywhere literally and actually say that the Church is to be utterly separated from the State? No, he doesn’t!

    To the contrary, Pope Leo XIII actually says the State’s power is only “free and unshackled in its own sphere.” That’s the limitation on the State --- “its own sphere.” Beyond that sphere of activity, the State is to be circumscribed and not “free and unshackled” to do whatever it wants. Yet did Pope Leo XIII say they’re to be utterly separate? Not so. Leo actually says “…union and concord should be maintained between them…” Union and concord. Does this sound like a man who’s telling us Church and State are to be separate?

    Moreover, Pope Leo XIII says the secular power “should happily and becomingly depend” on the Church’s power. He upholds the supremacy of the Church over the State! Then, to top it all off, he describes the proper relation between the two. To wit, the State should have “religion” as “its guide” so that “it will never rule unjustly;” while the Church “receives help of protection and defense for the public good of the faithful” from the State.

    The point is, both Church and State have their own particular duties and responsibilities on earth. The State ought not to dictate to the Church what bishops to appoint or religious decisions She decrees, nor should the Church bother to micromanage the day-to-day affairs of the State, etc.

    And this is precisely what Pope Leo XIII meant when describing the distinct but harmonious duties and responsibilities for Church and State as “…each power… free and unshackled in its own sphere...” It is sheer prejudice on the part of the accuser to claim otherwise, as if there is no rational way Pope Leo XIII could have meant by his words this very simple and orthodox point. The sphere of the Church entails matters of Faith and Morals, as well as the operation of Her Ecclesiastical Body. The sphere of the State entails matters of Law and Commerce, as well as the operation of Her Civil Body. Both must be “free and unshackled” to accomplish their own respective duties without silly or unjust meddling by the other power.

    However, the Church is superior to the State in Her Power, and must sometimes intrude on affairs of State when the State imposes on matters of Faith and Morals. This is why Pope Leo XIII mentions “…the power to which secular matters have been entrusted should happily and becomingly depend on the other power which has in its charge the interests of heaven.” In other words, the State ought to be inferior to the Church, deferring to Her Judgment.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "So one of the quotes you admit now was not heretical"

    No, I said that the original will have the answer.

    "but the first quote you still accuse him for heresy, is also not heretical, but what is worse, it is also taken out of context. I hope you did not do this on purpose, or perhaps you really thought in your ignorance that the continuation of the Pope's words in Arcanum, #36 was not important? This is why interpretation is everything. And there are strict, charitable and supremely logical rules for interpreting correctly."

    He says that there are questions of common right and authority between the Church and State. This implies an equality, rather than an order of subordination.

    "Hanging a man with his words only because you don’t want to admit that they can rationally mean something other than a heresy is not the right way to go about it. All this does is reveal your bias, how you so badly want to fight heresy that you don’t care one bit about the reputations you destroy and the evil you commit while trying to do so."

    Rhetoric. The man has already shown himself to be a heretic on the God the Father of all issue, which you have continually failed to address with Church teaching, but only your own opinion, in opposition to what the Church Herself has taught, defined and declared.

    Leo XIII softened the Church State relationship to the point where States were not reminded of their *duty* to be *subordinated*, instead he just said, to paraphrase succinctly, "it would be nice if the state happilly depended on the Church". Weak.

    "By the way, in the Immortale Dei #36-37 quote (that you now admit is not heretical if the word was "tolerate" instead of "sanction")"

    That is true.

    "all he said was that the Church does not condemn rulers that sanction (or tolerate) different religions to operate in the state. And this is true, since the Church does not condemn secular rulers ruling non-Catholic countries where there are different religions operating with permission or toleration (Germany would be a good example). And furthermore, many rulers themselves are not even Catholic, and therefore, it is even more true therefore that such rulers may "sanction" many different religions to operate. So there is no heresy here even if the word sanction was used."

    Those rulers who are under already obedience to the Catholic Faith have a duty to make laws that favour the Catholic religion, and not any other religion. To make laws that sanction other religions would be mortal sin, whereas toleration may or may not be sin, depending on the necessity, and the gravity of evils that are to be avoided by such toleration. And you say that non-Catholic rulers "may" sanction false religions. No, this is false. This may not be subject to ecclesiastical penalties and discipline, but they will face the wrath of the Divine Judge all the same.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Yet, no one doubts that Jesus Christ, the Founder of the Church, willed her sacred power to be distinct from the civil power, and each power to be free and unshackled in its own sphere: [continuation not quoted by David:] with this condition, however --- a condition good for both, and of advantage to all men --- that union and concord should be maintained between them; and that on those questions which are, though in different ways, of common right and authority, the power to which secular matters have been entrusted should happily and becomingly depend on the other power which has in its charge the interests of heaven. In such arrangement and harmony is found not only the best line of action for each power, but also the… dignity of the one is exalted, and so long as religion is its guide it will never rule unjustly; while the other receives help of protection and defense for the public good of the faithful.” (Leo XIII in his Arcanum, Paragraph #36)"

    Right, Jerome, he said questions of common right and authority, and he said "the power to which secular matters have been entrusted should happily and becomingly depend on the other power which has in its charge the interests of heaven". That is true, but stated so very weakly that combined with "free and unshackled" leaves an impression that there is no duty of subordination. I can admit that at best his words water down soften the true doctrine, while at worst they deny it it.

    But then we get his teachings in "Longinqua", in which he scandalizes the true doctrine on Church and State even further by saying "Catholicity is in good condition" in the United States, despite every immigrant being required to take an oath to support the heretical constitution. No surprise, coming from a "pope" who beatified Edmond Campion, a man who rejected a Bull of the Pope St. Pius V as his final act of life.

    ReplyDelete