Sunday, March 16, 2008
Faith and the state
Interesting letter in the Sunday Times (pg 18 and here) which reads:
QUESTION OF FAITH: Can Catholics, in good faith, pledge allegiance to a Protestant monarch? I can’t see Pope Benedict sitting still for this one.
It’s certainly another angle to an already contentious issue.
Michael Shilliday @ 10:40 PM
I’m afraid this was settled in the C18th.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 11:03 PMNo, and I wouldn’t pledge allegiance to the Pope either. But, I do respect him, and would respect a head of state no matter what religion they are as long as they are chosen by the people or parliament.
My inability to pledge alegiance to the Queen is not based on religion, so if the Act of Settlement was overturned and a Catholic could inherit the mantle of head of state it would not make a difference.
Monarchies are simply anachronisms and indefensible in the 21st century.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 01:13 AMAnd I accept that the Pope is not elected by open vote as head of state of the Vatican! That’s probably a special case though. My respect for him is derived from his position as head of the church.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 01:24 AM“It’s certainly another angle to an already contentious issue.”
No, it isn’t. And it was silly of you to waste broadwidth bringing it up for discussion. There are a hell of a lot of more sensible subjects to talk about than this ridiculous topic.
Use your head, mate. If you have nothing to say, say nothing. It’s as simple as that.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 01:49 AM“And I accept that the Pope is not elected by open vote as head of state of the Vatican! That’s probably a special case though. My respect for him is derived from his position as head of the church.”
Ridiculous double-standards but completely expected.......Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 11:12 AM‘Monarchies are simply anachronisms and indefensible in the 21st century. ‘
Anachronism -Yes
Indefensible - well maybe . But as long as a majority of the Brits want a royal family and British taxpayers pay for their upkeep then long may she rain over them -God shave her !
‘to an already contentious issue.’
Is it ? I would’nt have thought so .
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 01:05 PMYes, I believe Catholics can pledge allegiance to the Queen without upsetting the Pope. It is written in Canon law that:
“The constitutions of princes are not superior to ecclesiastical constitutions, but subordinate to them.”
(Corpus Juris Canonici, Decreti, pars i. distinct. x.)“The law of the emperors cannot dissolve the ecclesiastical law.”
(Idem, Decreti, pars i. distinct. x. can. i.)“Constitutions cannot contravene good manners and the decrees of the Roman prelates.”
(Idem, Decreti, pars i. distinct. x. can iv.)“Whatever belongs to priests cannot be usurped by kings.”
(Idem, Decreti, pars i. distinct. x. can. vi.)“The temporal power can neither loose nor bind the Pope.”
(Idem, Decreti, pars i. distinct. xcvi. can. vii.)“It does not belong to the Emperor to judge the actions of the Pope.”
(Idem, Decreti, pars i. distinct. xcvi. can. viii.)“The Bishop of Rome may excommunicate emperors and princes, depose them from their states, and assoil their subjects from their oath of obedience to them.”
(Decreti, pars i, distinct. xcvi. can. x., and Decreti, pars ii. causa xv. quest. vi. can. iii. iv. v.)......it’s all self explanatory, according to the Vatican the Queen is a subject of the Pope, so if you pledge allegiance to the Queen, you’re pledging allegiance to the Pope too.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 01:11 PMMy very sketchy understanding of this is that a pledge of allegiance would be acceptable under catholic law as long as the monarch wasn’t excommunicated, at which point catholics are no longer allowed to recognise the monarch as head of state.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 01:26 PMIn RC Chruches in England, they pray for their Queen. Not Mary, Queen of the Gael but Elizabrit. RCs are forbidden by English sectarians to be monarchs. And Ulster’s sectarians quite naturally support that sectarian policy. The issue of monarchy itself is a different question from the sectarian issue of King Billy and those others who subsequently gotthe brit throne for themselves.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 01:35 PMGood point Gav. I don’t think Elizabeth was ever excommunicated. We need the Popes to intervene on this issue and explain this matter to his subjects in Britain.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 01:38 PM“RCs are forbidden by English sectarians to be monarchs. And Ulster’s sectarians quite naturally support that sectarian policy. The issue of monarchy itself is a different question from the sectarian issue of King Billy and those others who subsequently gotthe brit throne for themselves.”
For goodness sake George V1, grow a brain.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 01:41 PMOk. As I said above, this issue was settled in the 18th century. With a clear yes. The idea that Catholics owed no allegiance to a heretical monarch was rejected. Hence all those prayers for His Majesty and the success of his armies and successors throughout much of the eighteenth, nineteenth and into the twentieth centuries. In the same way that German Catholics pledged allegiance to a Protestant monarch.
I hate to disappoint the fantasists from both sides but that’s the reality.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 01:42 PMI’ll probably regret this but who is “Mary - Queen of the Gaels”?
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 01:56 PMAlthough it would be nice to hear it from the horses mouth, I think the Vatican sees everyone who is baptised into the Christian faith as Roman Catholics anyway. That would mean the Vatican sees Elizabeth II as part of the church because she hasn’t condemned the Bishop of Rome (Pope).
According to this particular Canon the temporal power has to go against the decrees of the Pope in order to be excommunicated, just like how Elizabeth I voiced her opposition when she got excommunicated.
“We ordain that kings, and bishops, and nobles, who shall permit the decrees of the Bishop of Rome in anything to be violated, shall be accursed, and be for ever guilty before God as transgressors against the Catholic faith.”
(Decreti, pars ii. causa xxv. quest. i. can. xi.)Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 01:56 PMI would argue the matter was settled in the 1st century AD (see Matthew 22:15-21). The problem is not the question of whether allegiance is split between the temporal and spiritual, it was when spiritual authorities chose to assume temporal powers and who disputed the tearing of those powers from them by the Treaty of Westphalia.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 03:21 PM1 Samuel 10v24 “God save the King”
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 03:31 PMWhere is the double standard, Democratic? I pointed out the seeming inconsistency myself. Churches can pick their leaders how they want - and so I respect the Queen as head of the English church. The Vatican hardly counts as a state for the purposes of this discussion.
Isn’t that fair? Or should I be calling for free and open elections for the head of state of the Vatican? It only has a temporary population of 50 or so anyway so I dont know how that would work.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 04:40 PMIt shows Gum that your morals views and standards on the subject of heads (Pope / Queen)of state and church unelected by their own people are heavily slanted towards that which you find agreeable only. I would suspect the same is true of many Monarchy haters on this forum. BTW - that is not to say that I disagree with you though either - I just like to see the same logic conclusions applied across the board.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 05:21 PMno gods, no masters - anyone?
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 05:24 PM>>I think the Vatican sees everyone who is baptised into the Christian faith as Roman Catholics<<
Don’t be daft!
A question to ponder.
Should as is expected a large section(if not the majority) of Anglicans/Episcopalians move to be in communion with Rome. Will there be mass baptisms at local RC churches, or would their standing baptism suffice?
>>Can Catholics, in good faith, pledge allegiance to a Protestant monarch?<<
As soon as the anti-Catholic Act of settlement is repealed, why not. If that is your bag, so olde worlde though isn’t it?
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 05:29 PM“Should as is expected a large section(if not the majority) of Anglicans/Episcopalians move to be in communion with Rome. Will there be mass baptisms at local RC churches, or would their standing baptism suffice?”
as I said earlier the Vatican does not see baptism as the barrier, it is the communion or eucharist that will be the unifying factor. That has to be performed by an RC priest.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 05:40 PMDoes the Pope still have the power (in theory and only amongst Catholics obviously) to discredit a Monarch and negate their claim to said countrys throne should they offend the Catholic Church (e.g. Elizabeth 1)
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 05:42 PMDemocratic
As a medieval total war addict, the bastardin pope can eff up your plans for world domination believe me. By excommunicating you he causes the great unwashed to question your ability to lead them, and the bastards tend to rebel.
UMH
I honestly don’t have a clue, but why would the first and most important sacrament(baptism) be bypassed?
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 05:46 PM“As a medieval total war addict, the bastardin pope can eff up your plans for world domination believe me. By excommunicating you he causes the great unwashed to question your ability to lead them, and the bastards tend to rebel”
LOL - Have played the Rome Total War Prince(no pun intended)- good craic it is too!
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 05:51 PMDemocratic, we probably believe the same thing here to be honest. I don’t pledge allegiance to the Pope or any politician or any head of state. The fact that the Catholic church’s headquarters is a state confuses things a bit. The fact that there are no ordanary citizens of the Vatican besides the civil servants (clergy) that work there makes me consider it a bit of an anomaly. But your point is a theoretical one and I accept it.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 06:05 PM
