Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum
June 19, 2013, 12:05:PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The man still needs help!
 
   Fish Eaters    Forum Index   Forum Rules   Help Calendar Members Chat Room   Who's Chatting   Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21
 
Author Topic: Card. Levada Defends Rel. Liberty; Claims Abp. Lefebvre was "on path into schism".  (Read 10248 times)
StevusMagnus
Guest
« Reply #170 on: October 04, 2008, 05:03:PM »

Quote from: newschoolman
Again, are you speaking about an ideal in the abstract or from a relative point of view? 

An ideal, by its nature, is not a "relative point of view".

It is an objective standard that reality should imitate as closely as possible.
Logged
newschoolman
Member

Posts: 1,422


« Reply #171 on: October 04, 2008, 05:13:PM »

Quote from: StevusMagnus

Quote from: newschoolman
Again, are you speaking about an ideal in the abstract or from a relative point of view? 

An ideal, by its nature, is not a "relative point of view".

It is an objective standard that reality should imitate as closely as possible.


No, the "relative point of view" is critical since it considers the "ideal" relative to the requirements of circumstances of time and place -- in the contingent order of facts.  From this point of view -- and relative to a poliltical context lacking religious unity (e.g., as in the USA) -- religious freedom within due limits can be considered ideal.  This form of Christendom is the "secular conception of the temporal regime" described by Cardinal Journet. 
Logged
StevusMagnus
Guest
« Reply #172 on: October 04, 2008, 05:23:PM »

So US-style religious liberty is the Catholic ideal?

Your answer is Yes?
Logged
newschoolman
Member

Posts: 1,422


« Reply #173 on: October 04, 2008, 05:25:PM »

Quote from: StevusMagnus
So US-style religious liberty is the Catholic ideal?

Your answer is Yes?

No.  But the ideal form of Christendom that we should strive for in the USA -- given the context of circumstances and lacking religious unity -- is the secular conception of the temporal regime as stated above.
Logged
StevusMagnus
Guest
« Reply #174 on: October 04, 2008, 05:37:PM »

So US-style religious liberty is NOT the Catholic ideal?
Logged


newschoolman
Member

Posts: 1,422


« Reply #175 on: October 04, 2008, 05:41:PM »

Quote from: StevusMagnus
So US-style religious liberty is NOT the Catholic ideal?

In practice it falls short of ideal. 
Logged
StevusMagnus
Guest
« Reply #176 on: October 04, 2008, 05:49:PM »

Quote from: newschoolman

Quote from: StevusMagnus
So US-style religious liberty is NOT the Catholic ideal?

In practice it falls short of ideal. 


So US-style religious liberty, in theory, is the Catholic ideal?
Logged
pascendi
Guest
« Reply #177 on: October 04, 2008, 07:16:PM »

You're still not a monarchist, schoolman? 


Logged
newschoolman
Member

Posts: 1,422


« Reply #178 on: October 04, 2008, 10:42:PM »

Quote from: StevusMagnus
Quote from: newschoolman

Quote from: StevusMagnus
So US-style religious liberty is NOT the Catholic ideal?

In practice it falls short of ideal. 


So US-style religious liberty, in theory, is the Catholic ideal?

In theory, and relative to circumstances in the USA in a context lacking religious unity -- it could be claimed that it is not far from the "ideal".  In practice, however, it does not measure up to the conception of the Christian secular form as described by Journet above.


Logged
newschoolman
Member

Posts: 1,422


« Reply #179 on: October 04, 2008, 10:51:PM »

Quote from: pascendi
You're still not a monarchist, schoolman? 


You know me better than that, Pascendi.  I follow the thought of St. Thomas on the matter:

Quote
According to the thought of St. Thomas, the best form of government in view of the common good of civil society (hic et nunc) is the mixed regime or regimen commixtum generally patterned after the temporal regime established by God in the Old Testament (ST. i-ii. 105. 1; “Talis enim est optima politia, bene commixta”):

1) The ideal is part "monarchy" insofar as there is a hierarchy (ST. i-i. 108. 2) with "one [man] head of all (e.g., a king, president, prime minister, etc.).  Such a ruler need not possess the totality of power in order to be considered as "king" as St. Thomas states: "Hence from the very first the Lord did not set up the kingly authority with full power, but gave them judges and governors to rule them." (ST. i-ii 105. 1) Considered purely in the abstract order of speculative ideas, however, this aspect of the regimen commixtum holds first place among the other basic governmental forms insofar as rule of one [man], per se, is patterned after the perfection of the divine government as well as the constitution that Christ established for His Church.

2) The ideal is part "aristocracy" insofar as hierarchical power is shared and distributed according to the diversity of orders or offices (ST. i-i. 108. 2). It is reasonable to foresee a certain separation of offices in order to provide an effective check against tyranny (Cf. De Regimine Principium) and preserving above all the rule of law" (ST. i-ii. 90. 1). What is implicit in the thought of St. Thomas has found explicit formulation in the teaching of the Catechism (CCC #1904): It is preferable that each power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it within proper bounds. This is the principle of the rule of law, in which the law is sovereign and not the arbitrary will of men.  Considered purely in the abstract order of speculative ideas, however, "aristocracy" has less perfection, per se, than "monarchy."

3) The ideal is part "democracy" insofar as all rightly take some share in the government (e.g., directly or representative -- that is vicariously -- insofar as civil rulers are the "vicar of the multitude" -- vicem gerens multitudinis; (ST. i-ii. 90. 3). This right is exercised by the people, for example, when they choose their rulers or when they legitimately replace a tyrannical regime (ST. ii-ii. 42. 2). Considered purely in the abstract order of speculative ideas, however, "democracy" has less perfection, per se, than the other two basic governmental forms.

4) "Monarchy", in itself, is considered to have the greatest perfection (in comparison to other basic governmental forms, in themselves) insofar as it is patterned after divine government and the government of the Church. In this sense, "Monarchy", per se, can be considered as the (absolute) best in the abstract order of speculative ideas.  Yet even this analogy has limitations insofar as God’s rule is shared among His adopted children among the communion of Saints.

5) The "Regimen Commixtum", on the other hand, is considered the best in a (relative) sense. In other words, relative to civil authority, per se, in the temporal order and man's state of nature, the regimen commixtum is considered to be the "best" and, as such, is generally patterned after the kind of civil government initially established by God in the Old Testament.



Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21
 
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC