Right. Notably both of Acton's royal examples were about a monarch whose sovereignty was denied by the supreme prelate recognized by many subjects, and the violence was directed (a) vs the pretender, (b) vs the seditious heretics
-
-
Replying to @QuasLacrimas
But if Britain had never alienated the sovereign's authority over the Church to a precarious Italian republic, that would never have been an issue in the first place
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
lol i think we prolly agree in principle, but the Greek Orthodox church hardly offers an edifying spectacle when it comes to church-state relations... i assume you know the history of the Byzantines...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Do you think the dangers of giving a sovereign authority over the bishops are indexed to the general danger that the sovereign will be suborned and sink into a morass of informal power? Or do you see the risk as equal for good govt and misgovt?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I agree (and n.b. the habit of training younger bros for the Church often led to kings who micromanaged theology to an unseemly degree) But the bishops can't claim religious policy as the exclusive domain of their caste; yesterday iirc I compared them to weapons engineers
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @QuasLacrimas
Weapons engineers should be trusted because they know the answer to tough technical questions better than anyone else But you don't let engineers set the military budget, make declarations of war, or anything like that
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
There is no way to formalize the delineations; you didn't happen to read the blogposts I did on "formal and informal capacities", did you? Whether a marriage is null is legitimately a religious q. Whether a baby is bastard or legitimate issue is a political/legal q. Inseparable!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.