You agree the Church should dictate government???
The second stage in Protestantism is to reject, in matters of religion, the authority of the temporal government, and to subject religion to the control of the faithful. This is the full recognition in matters of religion of the democratic principle.
You agree we should give up democratic principles???
The third and last stage of Protestantism is Individualism.
You agree we should give up individualism???
This is nothing more than Socialism wrapped in another bandage and was never what the church was intended to be. Reading about Augustines history I recall how he was fearful of going into a town for he feared the people would make him a bishop (which is what happened). The people decided who would be their bishop-not the Church.
Orestes Brownson was correctly assessing the state of contemporary events and predicting what would happen in the future if the Catholic Faith was not recognized as the only basis of personal sanctity and hence of all social order.
Please. Put away the piety. The author sounds like he longs for the medieval ages when the Church could interpret the scriptures to suit their social order or finance their schemes.
You make it sound like the medieval Church was always corrupt. In fact, it wasn't. The high point of corruption was during the Renaissance, NOT during the medieval ages.
Considering that it is infallible Catholic doctrine, sure. Every Catholic is supposed to know and believe this. It is merely a couple hundred year's worth of expanding Liberalism which has deceived them into believing otherwise. Or to tolerate it, ignore it, or to consider what God ordained to be no longer possible or reasonable.
I believe it. Not sure what everyone else's problem is.
"You agree we should give up democratic principles???"
Those principles are offensive to Christ and are in opposition to His Church.
"You agree we should give up individualism???"
Yes. Individualism is this: I will not serve. That's basically it in a nutshell. It is in conflict with the essence of man and family. It is evolutionary; it is self-seeking.
"This is nothing more than Socialism wrapped in another bandage and was never what the church was intended to be."
It is what the Church was intended to be. But nope, it ain't Socialism. In fact, it is Socialism's polar opposite. What we have right now... that's socialism. SocialismLite, but just wait around. It'll get worse. Anyone can see that it is getting worse.
"Please. Put away the piety."
No. Not if it is the real thing, no way. Piety means in Latin dutifulness; theologically it is fulfillment of duty to God, state, family, Faith. You want this stuff put away?
"The author sounds like he longs for the medieval ages when the Church could interpret the scriptures to suit their social order or finance their schemes.
That's just a little tricking wording on your part to make it appear as if the author is limited to choosing between two lousy candidates:
Choice A: ditch his disturbing thesis about Catholic monarchy, or
Choice B: ...or you'll just say he's a crooked schemer based on your own revisionist, liberal bluescreen you call "history".
I must admit that you are being true to American principle, though. After all, we have once again been subjected to the torturous rule of two, prefabricated, lousy stinking choices... lol.
The Church has always dictated to the government, in fact there would be no government without the Church. Even before the Christian era this has been so, it has been so since Samuel anointed Saul and David and so the other prophets and priests the other kings of Israel. It was so when St Ambrose forced Emperor Theodosius to do penance, it was so when Pope St Leo III crowned Charlemagne Emperor of the Romans, and so on and so forth. The only legitimate authority (not simply "power") that exists in this world comes from God through His Church.
Should we give up democratic principles? Not entirely perhaps, but we certainly have to give up "absolute democracy" which pretty much means, the majority is always right: a totally anti-Christian view. The Scriptures say we are to "lean not on our own understanding' and that the majority will most often do what is evil, while only a minority follow the path of righteousness. Similarly, this is all tied to tollerance, and as the great G.K. Chesterton said, "tolerance is the virtue of people who don't believe in anything". Jesus was far from "tolerant", He said whoever is not with him, is against him. simple.
As far as socialism, and the Church wanting money to finance their schemes, you couldn't be more misinformed. The Medieval Church was the great example of the opposite of socialism, which is public welfare, as the Church was the source of private welfare. The "schemes" the Church financed were things like schools, poor houses, widows, orphans, hospitals, universities, most of which recieved nothing from the state and for which the taxpayers paid nothing. In this time the government did almost nothing beyond defense, foreign relations and perhaps some artistic patronage. And even then, the military was extremely "privatized" most of the time anyway.
Christendom was not the horrible, oppressive regime the liberals would have you believe it was. It was in fact the basis for such things as constitutional government (though not in the hypocritic form we know it today), of "states rights" against federalism and before we started trying to build legal "walls" around our religion to try and exclude Christ the King from having any sway over government.