Apropos the turn this discussion has made, I'll quote the above-mentioned letter (taken from the ignored essay first posted by me here). 

Pope St. Gelasius I  (r. AD 486-492, hopefully, early enough for seigneur). Famuli vestrae pietatis:

There are two, august Emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled, namely, the sacred authority (auctoritas sacrata) of the priests and the royal power (regalis potestas). Of these, that of the priests is weightier, since they have to render an account for even the kings of men in the divine judgment. You are also aware, most clement son, that while you are permitted honorably to rule over human kind, yet in divine matters you bend your neck devotedly to the bishops and await from them the means of your salvation. In the reception and proper disposition of the heavenly sacraments you recognize that you should be subordinate rather than superior to the religious order, and that in these things you depend on their judgment rather than wish to bend them to your will. If the ministers of religion, recognizing the supremacy granted you from heaven in matters affecting the public order, obey your laws, lest otherwise they might obstruct the course of secular affairs by irrelevant considerations, with what readiness should you not yield them obedience to whom is assigned the dispensing of the sacred mysteries of religion?

http://www.web.pdx.edu/~ott/Gelasius/
 

Last edited by GeorgiusThomas (11/30/2017 3:01 pm)

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

Seigneur, I'm not sure why you responded to my queries almost solely with your own questions. Also you seem to jump to questions about more complex issues, like the role of Pope or of non-Christians, without resolving basic ones.

I have tons of questions, because you have not even begun to formulate what is the basic point of departure for you.

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

The most basic issue is the Christian view of the state.

Yes. And your point of departure regarding this issue is...? Is it natural law or the scriptures? To me it's both, where the first applies to the world at large and the latter to Christians. How about you?

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

I meant almlst Gnostic in the sense you seem to implying Christian principles have lots to do with man's social and political life, which seems to me to suggest these areas of life are under some other suzerainty but the Church's and God's.

Really? How did you get that idea?

Why? Have you provided a scriptural argument for that the church is anything else?
_ _ _ 
Per the terms of my invocation I notify you that you're to withdraw this statement due to its lack of scriptural justification. 
If you don't understand the reason for this, here's a hint: if you believe that a descriptive statement in Acts 4:32-35 -prescribes- Communism, surely, a fortiori, you should take grammatical imperatives to signify a duty of yours (per your strange religion). And that means that you are to give me what I want. And I explicitly told you what I ask of you. And given that there's nothing in Scripture that allows you to forgo this (as you seem to believe that a Christian is not allowed anything not mentioned in the Gospel), you are in no position to demand anything of Gentiles such as Jeremy Taylor or me. This is clearly natural law thinking emanating from your wordly self. You need to overcome it. After all, "it's not a matter of if it's practical or feasible or easy to do it."

I will probably respond to this in more detail later, when I have time. But I'd better see the arguments I requested the next time I check this thread.
_ _ _ 
So you are a universalist? This would relieve me from obligation to engage with pretty much anything you say...
_ _ _
Precisely what gave you that idea? How does recalling man's duty to profess the true religion and to live in accordance with it amount to universalism? 

I have to confess that I find it very hard to resist the conclusion that you have no idea what you're talking about.
_ _ _ 

Doesn't Scripture also say that Caesar and God are distinct? Let's suppose Caesar may profess Christianity, but can the Pope assume authority to depose Caesar
_ _ _
Yes, they are distinct. Caesar is a man, and as such subject to God. His authority is given Him by God so that a certain service be rendered to Him. 
The pope did not 'assume' anything: as Catholics the emperor, the princes of the Empire and all other subjects were also subject to the pope's sacred authority as pastor of the flock. Also, the imperial title was in theory initially -granted- by the Roman Church to the emperor/the German nation etc. (do look up my earlier reply; at the time of his 'deposition' he wasn't crowned Emperor yet, but he aimed at the title and claimed rights on its basis). The Emperor's -special- duty was believed to be the protection of the Church. Thus the oath:

"In the name of Christ I, N., the Emperor, promise, undertake and protest in the presence of God and Blessed Peter the Apostle, that I will be the protector and defender of the Holy Roman Church in all ways that I can be of help [in omnibus utilitatibus] so far as I shall he supported by the Divine aid, according to my knowledge and ability."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04380a.htm



Henry's insistance on controlling episcopal nominations was imcompatible with this, thus rendering him an obstinate sinner and a public oppressor of the Church. Aiding him in this situation, in the pope's judgement, would have been sinful, and hence the sentence was given, to correct him and to preserve the princes and other imperial subjects from sin. 
_ _ _
The 'rock' in Matthew 16:18 may have to do with the apostle Peter, but why would that transfer to the pope? 
_ _ _
The reason it does is because for the Church to last until the end is to persist with her divinely ordained constitution intact. That means that if the first generation had a  'master of the house', all the others will not fail to have one too.
_ _ _
even while historically (early) Christianity was persecuted and decentralized and scripturally it was destined to stay this way to the end.
_ _ _ 
seigner ipse dixit!

Last edited by GeorgiusThomas (12/02/2017 5:50 am)

seigneur wrote:

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

I don't think that is an accurate reflection of Orthodox belief. The Orthodox believe in the ancient idea of the two swords. They don't believe the secular power should dictate to the Church

It's not a matter of should. It's a matter of fatalism: The Caesar dictates and the Church has no way to counteract it except by way of martyrdom. Definitely the church should not dictate things to the Caesar and not appoint and remove emperors and kings the way bishops of Rome have done.

Definitely the Church should dictate things to Caesar when Caesar is being, say, a tyrant or presuming to be a spiritual authority and particularly if he makes claims touching directly on the faith. Caesar just needs to be a man to be Caesar; the Church is endowed with divine authority. How can you put Caesar and the Church on equal footing particularly when it comes to authority? Caesar is not said to be a foundation of truth; the Church, however, is; Caesar is not promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against him: Saint Peter and the Church were. That God wills and establishes both doesn't change the fact that the Church is a specially willed divine institution meant exactly to guide and lead mankind to his redemption, blessedness and eternal salvation. The Church is willed by God and to attack the Church would be to attack God or the will of God.

Medieval Europe was modeled a little alike to the OT Kingdom of Israel: Medieval kings and emperors could rightly claim to be anointed by God to rule (if you were a Christian and Catholic and most of them were). However, this anointing in its turn came from the voluntary action of the Church, which represents both the faithful and God. When the king or emperor became a tyrant and presumed to arrogate to himself (or herself) spiritual authority or to violate ancient laws, traditions and customs long sanctioned by the Church (which violations were alwaystypically grievous to the people and the peace), they could lawfully be deposed by the Church, as the Church is the one who made them to be the anointed king or queen in the first place. They would then be at best natural kings or queens, their subjects not owing them any special religious reverence or allegiance arising from the Faith (think of King David and Saul).

Even to this day the Church does not hesitate to affirm or deny whether some state action is ultimately legitimate or moral or not; to affirm or deny when the state is or is not acting within its legitimate rights and authority or is acting outside of them: this, even though the officials in question may not even be Christians and thus in any way subjects of the Church. But yet the Christian kings and emperors were subjects of the Church. They even rested much of their authority on it. So while the Church doesn't presume to make or unmake or legitimize formally secular regimes, she does believe she has authority over the morality and legitimacy of their conduct regardless, resting ultimately on divine authority.

seigneur wrote:

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

​My point of departure is simply a basic conception of God's relationship to man.

In other words, it's natural law over the scripture. I figured that much.

Sure, there is such a thing as God's relationship with man, but there is one kind of relationship with Christian and another with gentile.

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

You imply that the state and its authority and laws is something the Christian wants nothing to do with, which itself seems to imply that there are no Christian principles for this area of our lives (except leave it well alone).

"Leave it well alone" happens to be an active scriptural command, so it is the Christian principle.

Timocrates wrote:

seigneur wrote:

It's not a matter of should. It's a matter of fatalism: The Caesar dictates and the Church has no way to counteract it except by way of martyrdom. Definitely the church should not dictate things to the Caesar and not appoint and remove emperors and kings the way bishops of Rome have done.

Definitely the Church should dictate things to Caesar when Caesar is being, say, a tyrant or presuming to be a spiritual authority and particularly if he makes claims touching directly on the faith.

Didn't Jesus say to Peter, at the critical moment when injustice was about to happen, to put back his sword? The fate was decided beforehand and there was no point fighting against it. The governments of this world are doomed no matter what - it's by their very nature. Those who lay any hope on them are likewise doomed.

Timocrates wrote:

How can you put Caesar and the Church on equal footing particularly when it comes to authority?

How can you presume to dictate things to Caesar? Divine order is of course superior to anything the secular power may do or proclaim, but Christians must wait for the signs to appear, instead of telling Caesar to obey the divine order right here right now, as if the time were at hand and as if Caesar were under Christian command.

I know that popes (used to) do that a lot, to dictate things to emperors, kings and princes, like any presumptuous secular ruler does to other rulers. This is how I can tell that popes are just secular rulers, in the category of Caesar.

​The Lord never said to withdraw the sword of the Spirit and truth. The Apostles and bishops and arguably by extension particularly the Pope are always to wield the sword of the Spirit and truth to combat evil, as well as to establish and build up God's kingdom (dominion) on earth; the physical sword, however, is optional - and certainly and especially when Christians would think to use it necessarily its use is subject to the Lord's judgment. Historically for Roman Catholicism, though, Saint Peter's successor is basically thought to be the one authority who can discern when using the physical sword is legitimate in the Lord's sight: the Catechism does give criteria for its use, particularly where there is tyranny because we believe he is the vicar of Christ on earth.