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? 

No comments:

Post a Comment