Church before state.

The question is:

Should Roman Catholic's follow the Pope before the Head of State of their country?

In my opinion, your not a true Catholic if you don't accept that the Pontiff is the successor to Saint Peter and therefore Jesus' appointed representative on Earth.

Thusly, I would put the decrees of the Holy Father before that of the House of Commons or the Queen. Is this unreasonable?

Isn't this somewhat a variant of your previous question about whether ecclesiastic law should trump common law? 😬

In any case the answer is no, imo. But I'm a Hell-bound amoral atheist/agnostic.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Isn't this somewhat a variant of your previous question about whether ecclesiastic law should trump common law? 😬

In any case the answer is no, imo. But I'm a Hell-bound amoral atheist/agnostic.

I hoped the Confession one would only really stay on the topic of rights of confession...

However, DK raised some points so I thought that maybe we should look at the relationship between Catholics and Rome.

I mean, people thought JFK shouldn't be president because he was a Catholic and they suspected he would take orders from the Pope.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The question is:

Should Roman Catholic's follow the Pope before the Head of State of their country?

In my opinion, your not a true Catholic if you don't accept that the Pontiff is the successor to Saint Peter and therefore Jesus' appointed representative on Earth.

Thusly, I would put the decrees of the Holy Father before that of the House of Commons or the Queen. Is this unreasonable?

Originally posted by Transfinitum
In all theological and religious matters (including political actions from the Church; e.g a call to arms) I would follow the pope and magesterium without question. But on national matters and nation-specific topics, it has been Church practice to allow nations to make their own decisions in that regard. So unless there is a specific decree from the Vatican on a nation-specific issue, a Catholic should follow the head of state (unless there is sin, of course).

The question asked if the should put the Vatican's decrees before the States...in all matters.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The question is:

Should Roman Catholic's follow the Pope before the Head of State of their country?

In my opinion, your not a true Catholic if you don't accept that the Pontiff is the successor to Saint Peter and therefore Jesus' appointed representative on Earth.

Thusly, I would put the decrees of the Holy Father before that of the House of Commons or the Queen. Is this unreasonable?

Assuming they do believe that only through following the orders of their chosen master (the pope) they can receive eternal salvation, I'd advise them to indeed follow his rules over state law. Though, I'd also tell them that they should consider the possibility that their belief is crap and that breaking the law does tend to have unenjoyable consequences.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The question asked if the should put the Vatican's decrees before the States...in all matters.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Assuming they do believe that only through following the orders of their chosen master (the pope) they can receive eternal salvation, I'd advise them to indeed follow his rules over state law. Though, I'd also tell them that they should consider the possibility that their belief is crap and that breaking the law does tend to have unenjoyable consequences.

However, thats about weighing up the possibilities.

Question: Follow the Pope before the State?

Outcome 1: The Pope is not Christ's representative and thus your punishment in jail for breaking the law is not going to be compensated. You may loose your liberty or life and all for nothing.

Outcome 2: The Pope is Christ's representative and thus your punishment in jail for breaking the law will be compensated. You may loose your liberty or life but you will receive tenfold in heaven.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
However, thats about weighing up the possibilities.

Question: Follow the Pope before the State?

Outcome 1: The Pope is not Christ's representative and thus your punishment in jail for breaking the law is not going to be compensated. You may loose your liberty or life and all for nothing.

Outcome 2: The Pope is Christ's representative and thus your punishment in jail for breaking the law will be compensated. You may loose your liberty or life but you will receive tenfold in heaven.

Well, since I happen to be anarchist, I don't believe in merit of state laws anyways. It's all just a big calculation though, isn't it?

I thought it was supposed to be outcome 3: The Pope may be Christ's representative but - while you still adamantly believe in Christ, and thus should be saved by his crucifixion - you're aware of human fallacy in interpretation, have free will and the ability of independent decision making, and thus would not break laws that are presumably put in place for the general well-being of the commonwealth.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I thought it was supposed to be outcome 3: The Pope may be Christ's representative but - while you still adamantly believe in Christ, and thus should be saved by his crucifixion - you're aware of human fallacy in interpretation, have free will and the ability of independent decision making, and thus would not break laws that are presumably put in place for the general well-being of the commonwealth.

18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.

I don't particularly care about the etymology of Peter literally meaning rock anymore than I care about the etymology of Apple literally meaning apple in determining the infallibility of a mythological figure's earthbound surrogate or whether Gwyneth Paltrow's spawn will be the anti-christ, respectively.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't particularly care about the etymology of Peter literally meaning rock anymore than I care about the etymology of Apple literally meaning apple in determining the infallibility of a mythological figure's earthbound surrogate or whether Gwyneth Paltrow's spawn will be the anti-christ, respectively.

The Pope is just a man as fallible as any other man elected by a group of men as fallible as any other men, head of a church that has shown its fallibility numerous times.

The average citizen can do what ever trips his trigger. Once elected to state or federal office, to do otherwise would likely be against their oath of office.

As for Kennedy, it was said of him, and it was wrong.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Well the important point to note here is that God Himself created the Catholic Church, and by definition God can have no error. Because of this, the pope (when using the doctrine of infallibility) has direct confirmation from God incarnate that what he is saying must be true.

He might have created it to test the intelligence and faith of people in their individual morals, as a sort of "if you believe in this, you should be put in hell". Really, there's NOTHING to suggest that the catholic church and the pope in particular have any authority over anyone.

its unreasonable due to a number of things.

1. the pope is just a falliable man, nuthing more, who is made more falliable with his part to play in protecting dogma

2. catholocism isnt representative of truth

3. neither the pope, nor catholocism advocates laws which are fair to all faiths and beleifs

Originally posted by leonheartmm
1. the pope is just a falliable man, nuthing more, who is made more falliable with his part to play in protecting dogma

Yup.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
2. catholocism isnt representative of truth

It could be 😛

Originally posted by leonheartmm
3. neither the pope, nor catholocism advocates laws which are fair to all faiths and beleifs

B- but no one does that.

^2- naaaaah 🙂

3- yes, secularistic IDEOLOGIES do. {differentiate ideologies from implementation and perhaps see that the criteria that most relegiouns use for FAIR is always majorly biased in their favour and steps on the rights of others}

Originally posted by leonheartmm
its unreasonable due to a number of things.

1. the pope is just a falliable man, nuthing more, who is made more falliable with his part to play in protecting dogma

2. catholocism isnt representative of truth

3. neither the pope, nor catholocism advocates laws which are fair to all faiths and beleifs

The problem with your post is that you present certain factoids as though they have not been heard, considered and internalized by the very people you're arguing against. Common sense does not enter the equation when common sense was abandoned in favor of their own illogial conclusions or sycophantic certainties, to begin with...