/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>635890

Diuturnum, On the Origin of Civil Power,

Pope Leo XIII, 1881

14. This doctrine the Apostle Paul particularly inculcated on the Romans; to whom he wrote with so great authority and weight on the reverence to be entertained toward the higher powers, that it seems nothing could be prescribed more weightily: “Let every soul be subject to higher powers, for there is no power but from God, and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist purchase to themselves damnation . . . wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.”[16] And in agreement with this is the celebrated declaration of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, on the same subject: “Be ye subject, therefore, to every human creature for God’s sake; whether it be to the king as excelling, or to governors, as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of the good, for so is the will of God.”[17]

15. The one only reason which men have for not obeying is when anything is demanded of them which is openly repugnant to the natural or the divine law, for it is equally unlawful to command to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated. If, therefore, it should happen to any one to be compelled to prefer one or the other, viz., to disregard either the commands of God or those of rulers, he must obey Jesus Christ, who commands us to “give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,”[18] and must reply courageously after the example of the Apostles: “We ought to obey God rather than men.”[19] And yet there is no reason why those who so behave themselves should be accused of refusing obedience; for, if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, they themselves exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice; nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13civ.htm

>>635890

It means we are to be subject to evil, and that evil judges evil in this world. Also, nothing that is has any power except what is given by God. Follow the laws of the land, but do not approve of them. Just submit to their evil.

>>635984

I'd like to know when they aren't opposed to the laws of God? I've not seen one government that is not except the Kingdom of God, ruled by Christ (but that's cheating because He is God).

Also notice the raw context of what he's saying:

"Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are. Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” No, “if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority[a] does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due."

It seems to me he's saying to do good to all, even enemies, even the state, because all receive their power from God, so to not be subject to them is to resist God and do evil (in which you will be punished). I consider the whole of them evil, and I will only ever resist what is directly restricting me from doing God's work (if Christianity is ever illegal where I live) or forcing me to murder someone (like a draft if that ever happens). Then Christians accept the consequences of their resistance, but that is what it is.

No fallen men, especially non-Christian ones, can understand or do justice. They fail the laws of God each time they do not love their neighbor as they love themselves, and pervert justice. And each time they do not love God with all of their being, they fail to do justice and their duty to God. They, like all people, are pure evil, and we are only redeemed through Christ.

>>635987

>I'd like to know when they aren't opposed to the laws of God?

When they don't demand anything "which is openly repugnant to the natural or the divine law".

>do good to all, even enemies, even the state

Right. Tell them about Jesus Christ, the life, the truth and the way. That certainly does not mean you should violate natural or divine law if they order you to, like you seem to agree with:

>I will only ever resist what is directly restricting me from doing God's work

>They fail the laws of God each time they do not love their neighbor as they love themselves, and pervert justice.

Are you conflating what a ruler does in his personal life with the laws of a state? If the law doesn't require you to violate natural or divine law, follow it. If it is against natural or divine law, resist it. “We ought to obey God rather than men.”

Suggest you take the time to read http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13civ.htm which has the correct context.

…only reason which men have for not obeying is when anything is demanded of them which is openly repugnant to the natural or the divine law, for it is equally unlawful to command to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated. If, therefore, it should happen to any one to be compelled to prefer one or the other, viz., to disregard either the commands of God or those of rulers, he must obey Jesus Christ… there is no reason why those who so behave themselves should be accused of refusing obedience; for, if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, they themselves exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice; nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null.

>>636023

11. And, indeed, nature, or rather God who is the Author of nature, wills that man should live in a civil society; and this is clearly shown both by the faculty of language, the greatest medium of intercourse, and by numerous innate desires of the mind, and the many necessary things, and things of great importance, which men isolated cannot procure, but which they can procure when joined and associated with others. But now, a society can neither exist nor be conceived in which there is no one to govern the wills of individuals, in such a way as to make, as it were, one will out of many, and to impel them rightly and orderly to the common good; therefore, God has willed that in a civil society there should be some to rule the multitude. And this also is a powerful argument, that those by whose authority the State is administered must be able so to compel the citizens to obedience that it is clearly a sin in the latter not to obey.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13civ.htm

>>636025

You do realize that Catholics are allowed to follow the doctrine of non-resistance in their lives, right? And those who do follow it are "against" governments because they are not non-resistant, but do not break their laws, not pay their taxes, etc.

>>636025

Not even Christ-An, but a civil society could include some kind of communalist/semi-anarchist set up. Not like lawlessness, but what was going on in Acts.

>>636027

>doctrine of non-resistance

Source, please.

> are "against" governments because they are not non-resistant, but do not break their laws, not pay their taxes, etc.

Not following you. Do you mean being "against" governments like those ruled by pagans or others with no right to rule?

>>636030

Peter and the apostles ruled over what was going on in Acts, as such it wasn't "communalist/semi-anarchist" at all. People sold their belongings and joined the Church, but it was hardly what you describe.

>>636033

The doctrine of non-resistance isn't a "doctrine" more just a way of living, "do not resist evil" (by force). We do not join the military, do not own weapons, do not use martial arts, do not call the police, do not vote, etc. It's not something a Catholic is made not to do, it's just pacifism applied to everyday life.

By "against" governments is being against (would never support one) them as they use force (resisting evil by force), but non-resistant Christians do not resist the governments by force. They follow the laws, pay taxes, etc. It's not certain ones, it's all of them. They would never support one.

>>636036

>The doctrine of non-resistance isn't a "doctrine" more just a way of living

You don't know what you're talking about. Learn what the Church actually teaches before you talk about doctrine.

>>636042

Wasn't talking of doctrine in that sense, and I know what the Church teaches, it's just I was pointing out one doesn't actually have to engage in those things or not be an anarchist or not be a non-resistant Christian that forfeits self-defense.

>>636056

I do show my faith where I am knowledgeable of it. I'm currently learning apologetics (against atheist and non-Christians specifically) so I can actually converse. All Christians need to be able to defend the Lord in human reason to bring others to superhuman faith. I'll be more careful with "doctrine" but even though it isn't a doctrine it is often called "the doctrine of non-resistance" because it interprets Matthew 5:39 and much of Jesus in a literal way.

I understand the natural law and all, but a Catholic does not have to follow it in this area. It is perfectly fine for a person to be Catholic and non-resistant.

The reason I brought this up (in the first post about it) is non-resistants are necessarily a form of anarchist, and among ourselves would not organize governments if the whole world was us (there wouldn't be a "need" to either since no one would do crime), and would never lend support to a government, either with voting or with words, so are "against" it (but not with force).

I could do that because I would never presume I could ever under any circumstances be pure in heart and not desire vengeance, or be angry, or upset, or worrying, or perturbed slightly in an event like that (all of which are sinful reactions). And we are all immortal anyway, so I don't worry for my life or others (worrying for your life is especially sinful).

>>635890

Of course you can resist >foreign governments you misunderstood the verse man

>>636065

I feel like there have been multiple misunderstandings here and I'd like to keep the peace, so I'll clear up a few things:

What I am not saying: (1) that this is a doctrine of the Church, (2) that it is a utopian goal or a political ideology, (3) that all Christians have to do this, (4) that it is in any way needed to be a good Catholic.

What I am saying: (1) that Catholics are allowed to be non-resistant, (2) that there is no conflict between submitting to governments and not being for them.

Non-resistance: The lifestyle of some Christians to never resist evil by force. This means that we do not join the military, do not join the police, are not security guards, or any jobs that require reporting to them (like being teachers). We do not own weapons. We do pay taxes, and do follow the laws of the land except when they do not allow you to do God's work or be a Christian. Then we just accept the punishment of disobedience because Christians will not deny the Lord.

Where does this come from?: A tendency of some people over the course of Christian history to read this section (and most other sections) of the Sermon on the Mount in a extremely literal sense along with whatever the Church teaches about it. They take it as a personal code of behavior, just like not drinking ever on principle, they do not fight or use force ever on principle. The section: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

The implications of the doctrine and explanation for anarchist-lite behavior: They reason, "if I can not resist evil by force, then how can I elect someone else to do so? If I can not resist evil by force, then how can I call another to do so on my behalf?" This means that those who follow this never participate in politics or petition the government for anything, and are bound not to call the police. They repudiate all human protection.

Cowardice?: No. Imagine you are put into a dangerous place and not only are you not allowed to fight with your hands, but no one can ever come to your physical aid. That is what following the lifestyle feels like all the time. Only God is your defense if He wills. It is not spineless at all, and requires that you not be worried about dying.

Hope that helps.

>>636065

>As for your unwillingness to fight, it seems spineless, callous, and cruel to any victims that happen to be in your vicinity. Lukewarm is a word that comes to mind. If you're not worried about dying, why not go out fighting?

Your idea that every case of unwillingness to fight is cowardice led you to a rather funny situation there. You are suggesting that anon should fight the government and therefore sin.

>>636023

yeeet

>>636106

It is fine for someone to take it literally, and it is fine for someone to not take it literally. The reason I say that is because of confirmed Saints who did violence in their lives, and confirmed Saints who embodied non-resistance (martyrs for example). So clearly God does not care either way for some reason, or allows violence in some Saints based on them having pure intentions despite their wrong-doing, who knows, I don't, so it's no matter.

I personally take it literally, and a lot of Jesus I take literally and apply the words to extreme points often (not to cutting off my hands, but to binding them and mortifying them with pain for example).

>>636147

Both interpretations can't be correct at the same time.

for neither did Christ nor St. Paul turn the other cheek.

Saints we know are in heaven, however that doesn't mean they never did anything wrong. You have to look to the magisterium, to what the Church teaches. If we find that the magisterium teaches something contrary to what we thought, we have to immediately correct our position, and bring ourselves in line with the Church.

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus (# 4), May 17, 1835: “… the Church has, by its divine institution, the power of the magisterium to teach and define matters of faith and morals and to interpret the Holy Scriptures without danger of error.”

Isn't mortification only allowed with permission and supervision of a priest or bishop? I don't know what the rules are in the present situation, but I'm concerned you're being overly-virtuous and making things more difficult on yourself. Can't really tell from here though.

>>636163

some more

Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’”

Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”

Errors of the Jansenists, #30: “When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold it and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope.”- Condemned by Pope Alexander VIII