Posted on 02/11/2013 3:33:30 PM PST by Alex Murphy
It’s difficult to pinpoint a precise moment when the office of the pope began to lose its vast political power, which had long placed the Holy See above even the kings and emperors of Europe, but has since declined to the point that now-retiring Pope Benedict XVI found few political accomplishments in his reign. But one day that stands out is Dec. 2, 1804.
A few weeks earlier, French voters had overwhelmingly approved a referendum elevating Napoleon Bonaparte from first consul to emperor, the beginning of the end of France’s democratic revolution. His coronation was to proceed in the manner of all Catholic monarchs, who still ruled most of Europe: he would kneel before the pope, then Pius VII, to receive a crown and blessing. The symbolism of the coronation reflected centuries of European political tradition, in which the Catholic church formally conferred royalty with the divine blessing that was thought necessary to rule; the church, in its power, had at times competed openly with those same monarchs.
But when Napoleon marched up the altar of the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris, he did not kneel before Pope Pius VII as the French monarchs before him had done and as Pius surely expected. As Pius raised the crown, Napoleon instead turned to face the onlookers in the pews, snatched the crown out the pope’s hands and placed it on his own head. In Jacques Louis David’s famous painting of the incident, completed four years later, Pius stands sullenly back, watching as Napoleon crowns his wife queen.
Napoleon’s coronation did not on its own end the pope’s influence over world politics, but it symbolized that decline after centuries of vast papal authority over Europe.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The reports of political death are greatly exaggerated.
Which theocracy, with fewer than 1000 citizens is able to command world attention, have dictators literally shaking in their pants(General Jaruzelski), and have its leader draw millions to open air events? Hmmm, what would that be??
If you guessed Vatican City, you would be right!
Fortunately, political power isn’t essential in the spreading of the Gospel, but it certainly helps.
No other organization has more charitable hospitals, schools, or charitable anything than the Catholic Church.
As Peter was the leader of the Apostles after the Resurrection, so his successor leads his brother bishops in the care of the Church and its believers, as well as its ministries of charity and evangelization to the entire world.
Regarding the Bible and the organization of the Church, one only need look at Matthew 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-21. You will continue to notice in the entire book of Acts that Peter is the lead figure. St. Paul goes to Jerusalem to see Peter first, then James, but no other Apostles (Galatians 1:18).
These references are only a small sampling of what the Bible tells us about the organization of the Church.
I hope this helps!
Posting a bunch of RCC advertisements doesn’t help.
Will the real apostle Peter please stand up? It certainly isn’t your celibate, rosary bead counting, Mary idolator, pompous monarch with a crown on his head on a throne in Rome, the list goes on and on, Peter the Pope. The apostle Peter I see in the Bible is NONE of this!
The Peter I see in the Bible was not celibate, he had a wife, his counting of rosary beads while mumbling prayerful repetitions to Mary is not in the Bible. No record in the Bible of him being called a Pope, or Holy Father. Nowhere does he say the church is founded on himself at the rock either, he said Jesus Christ is the one the church is founded on, 1 Pet. 2:6-8.
you are looking at things purely from the US point of view. In the US there will be a move away from the detracting points you raise, but in the wider area, the Church has been against dictators — John Paul II’s election was the turning point, he brought down the communists in Poland which was the starting point for the house of cards to fall down.
people with more than half a brain see that orthodoxy is what God ordained. If you want to follow arianism or gnosticism, that’s your choice.
OK, since you don’t want to use the Bible to understand the evolution of the Church, I encourage you to read historic accounts of the times, as well as Church history written by secular authors.
While your opinion of Peter is strictly your matter, it would be worthwhile to understand how the eleven original Apostles spread the Gospel, creating a unified entity until the first schism in around year 1054.
You ascribe a significant amount of emotion, and falsity in your post, so I won’t take it personally, but rather as a sign of ignorance of basic facts.
Lol. Romanists must not be all bad. You actually stand against some non-orthodox beliefs that I stand against: arianism and gnosticism. I commend you for that. Ireneaus would be proud of both of us.
Now, if you and SpirituTuo would only do the same with the great mass (no pun intended) of other non-orthodox things within Romanism...
What is your definition of orthodox vs. non-orthodox?
Also, what is “Romanism?”
I have assumptions of what you mean, but don’t want to put words into your mouth.
No need for assumption, no need for you to have to assume anything. My posts are clear enough. Easy for anyone to see where I am coming from, what I mean by orthodox and Romanism.
We are “tail end Charlie” on this thread. Start another thread on that subject and I might accomodate you. I say “might,” because I’ve got other things going on around here.
“Yep, and the Church did not have a state again until Mussolini created the Vatican.”
The Popes didn’t recognize the Italian state until this was done.
“I would argue that Martin Luther posting the 95 theses, King Henry VIII telling the pope to put it his pipe and smoke it...”
These definitely hurt, but had less impact than the 1054 schism (as can be seen today).
“the discovery of the new world, and the mass publication of the Holy Bible”
I would think these helped spread the influence of the Vatican. Until recently Latin America voted the “Catholic line” in the UN; now the only people voting “Catholic” are the Muslim countries.
The fact is that such sassy folks are just compensating for the shallowness of their beliefs by hitting out at the Church
Wasn’t aware of that but it makes sense.
The treaty between the Vatican and the Italian government was used as evidence of collusion when the Balkan countries persecuted Catholics aftet the war. Basically, the secular Italian state that had seized the Papal States agreed to concessions to the Church (in education and such), and the Vatican recognized the state that had seized its land.
Reagan was the genius and the 800 pound gorilla that destroyed communism.
Those other two figures were of great help to Reagan as were other allies, but without him and the the United States and it’s 45 years of economic and military warfare against the Communists then that historical period would not be so different than the previous decades.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.