The Vatican - a sovereign state?

#1
#3
Bearing in mind that the Vatican state was set up by Mussolini with the Lateran Treaty (an Italian job), seemingly subsidised by Italy, why should the Pope be recognised outside the Vatican as head of a sovereign state?

When his sales reps mess up it seems that neither he nor his church bear responsibility - and said reps are often moved to an area where they are unknown.
http://www.arrse.co.uk/current-affa...-were-not-held-accountable-paedo-priests.html
Because he is ex German Hitler Youth,,,,,and by the way if Adolf Hitler or Mussolini said three Hail Mary's and three Our Fathers before they died they would not have gone to Hell and what's more if they confessed their sins to a priest they would have been forgiven and possibly gone to Heaven.

And anyway he put his towel on the papal throne to reserve it.
 
#4
Because he is ex German Hitler Youth,,,,,and by the way if Adolf Hitler or Mussolini said three Hail Mary's and three Our Fathers before they died they would not have gone to Hell and what's more if they confessed their sins to a priest they would have been forgiven and possibly gone to Heaven.

And anyway he put his towel on the papal throne to reserve it.
The repentance at death/forgiveness of sins is also in the CoE doctrine, no?

Otherwise Charles is going somewhere warm
 
#5
#6
The repentance at death/forgiveness of sins is also in the CoE doctrine, no?

Otherwise Charles is going somewhere warm
CoE? isn't that just rebranded Christianity?,,,,,so in answer to your post,,,Is it,,,,Dunno,,,,,,Charles who?.
 

LancePrivateJones

MIA
Book Reviewer
#7
Not sure what point the OP is trying to make here but I'll have a go.

Firstly, the Vatican City existed way before the Lateran Treaty as a de facto state and it was only Mussolini that gave it the present de jure status.
It was set up in its original modern form as compensation for the forfeiture of the Papal States during the unification of Italy.

As a baptised Catholic (I do not use the term 'Roman') I have never felt comfortable with the overwhelming Italian influence in the Vatican, I would be far more comfortable if the HQ was somewhere different.

BTW, if I were a religious person I would have gone Church of England many moons ago.
 
#8
Not sure what point the OP is trying to make here but I'll have a go.

Firstly, the Vatican City existed way before the Lateran Treaty as a de facto state and it was only Mussolini that gave it the present de jure status.
It was set up in its original modern form as compensation for the forfeiture of the Papal States during the unification of Italy.

As a baptised Catholic (I do not use the term 'Roman') I have never felt comfortable with the overwhelming Italian influence in the Vatican, I would be far more comfortable if the HQ was somewhere different.

BTW, if I were a religious person I would have gone Church of England many moons ago.

Somewhere different?,,,,Constantinople?,,,,,Antioch?,,,,Jerusalem?,,,,,,Alexandria?,known as The Pentarchy but still Catholics tho.
 
#11
Yeh the area would go broke when all them pakis packed up and moved back to Yorkshire.
OK, Nuneaton then.

Seriously, the RC HQ is totally infested with Italians and Italianism. It is merely a district of Rome by another name. For a so called Universal church it has very narrow vision and mindedness
 
#12
Bearing in mind that the Vatican state was set up by Mussolini with the Lateran Treaty (an Italian job), seemingly subsidised by Italy, why should the Pope be recognised outside the Vatican as head of a sovereign state?

Subsidised by Italy more like the rest of the poor deluded poor who belive in it.

Mind it does have a very good TAX free shop inside. If you think the NAFFI is cheap in Germany try the Vatican for your fags and 3 litr bottle of MATAXA
 
#13
The original poster is incorrect in his assumption that the 'Vatican State' - more properly the Vatican City State - was set up by Mussolini as a result of the 1929 Lateran Concords, as the implication would appear to be that somehow Vatican sovereignty directly (and solely) sprang from the Catholic Church cutting a deal with Mussolini's emerging Fascist dictatorship.

In this respect, the original poster is either ignoring or is unaware of the history of the Vatican both in relation to the unified Kingdom of Italy from the 1860s onwards (which successive popes refused to recognise) and the much earlier, and far older history of the sovereignty (legal and territorial) of the Holy See, most clearly manifest in the Papal States which existed from the 8th century until military defeat and (illegal) annexation by the Kingdom of Italy in the 1860s. The Papal States comprised quite a sizable territorial unit, about one third of the Italain peninsula even in the mid-1800s - it had its own government, army, naval forces, police and gendarmerie, currency, and diplomatic corps. Many of these still survive to this day.

What we now know as the Vatican City State - over which the Pope has spiritual and temporal power both as Bishop of Rome and head-of-state - existed both de jure and de facto as the Papal States; the Lateran Concords of 1929 recognised its de jure sovereignty in the context of its relations with the Kingdom of Italy.
 
#14
Bearing in mind that the Vatican state was set up by Mussolini with the Lateran Treaty (an Italian job), seemingly subsidised by Italy, why should the Pope be recognised outside the Vatican as head of a sovereign state?

Subsidised by Italy more like the rest of the poor deluded poor who belive in it.

Mind it does have a very good TAX free shop inside. If you think the NAFFI is cheap in Germany try the Vatican for your fags and 3 litr bottle of MATAXA
It also has the highest rates of crime in the world on a pro rata basis because of its tiny amount of citizens.
 
#15
Seriously, the RC HQ is totally infested with Italians and Italianism. It is merely a district of Rome by another name. For a so called Universal church it has very narrow vision and mindedness
Well what do you expect it to be?

The Church was created to continue the Roman Empire when it's political status began to crumble in the C5th.

It's hardly surprising that there are huge Roman influences in it (note Roman not Italian!)
 
#16
Well what do you expect it to be?

The Church was created to continue the Roman Empire when it's political status began to crumble in the C5th.

It's hardly surprising that there are huge Roman influences in it (note Roman not Italian!)
Ergo my opt out and describing myself as an 'English Catholic' as opposed to any filthy foreign muck.
 
#17
OK, Nuneaton then.

Seriously, the RC HQ is totally infested with Italians and Italianism. It is merely a district of Rome by another name. For a so called Universal church it has very narrow vision and mindedness
Yes I agree, It is very Italianate,but of course originally Rome and St Peters spoke Latin,this language was used universally throughout Christianity,in this country the Mass was given in Latin until the 1960s.Even now in some English RC Churches the Benediction is still given in Latin.

Of course it could all have been so different if the 11th century European Crusaders had not sacked Constantinople,,,then the universal RC language would have been Greek.
 
#18
Well what do you expect it to be?

The Church was created to continue the Roman Empire when it's political status began to crumble in the C5th.

It's hardly surprising that there are huge Roman influences in it (note Roman not Italian!)
Wrong,,the Emperor Constantine was Serbian who was fluent in Greek and Latin who set up the Eastern Roman Empire in Byzantium which he renamed Constantinople,the local language was Greek and the Mass was given in Greek.
 
#19
Dragging the thread off-topic a bit, aren't the Knights of Malta (or Sovereign Military Order of Malta) also a "sovereign state"? I guess they get to avoid council tax on their office, or whatever they have in Rome...
 
#20
X1551_727_CWPapalStatelong.png Well, the Vatican states, as were, divided the country and were eventually absorbed into Italy. The pope, Pius IX, was somewhat pissed and issued a Syllabus of Errors in 1864 condemning some ninety “errors and perverse doctrines” including separation of church and state, a free press and secular education.

In effect the pope ("The servant of the servants of God") appears to be a despot who, with his cabal of cardinals', is responsible for much of the illiteracy and poverty in third world countries, and expects people to kiss his ring (some servant!).

I have no problem with him having a say within the Vatican city, however he has a disproportionate say in the way people of other sovereign states live through his sales reps (bishops and priests), at times setting them against their own countrymen/women.

I do not feel comfortable with persons of any religion who feel they have the right to tell me, or others, how to live their life.

You may infer from this that I am not a god-botherer.

Not sure what point the OP is trying to make here but I'll have a go.

Firstly, the Vatican City existed way before the Lateran Treaty as a de facto state and it was only Mussolini that gave it the present de jure status.
It was set up in its original modern form as compensation for the forfeiture of the Papal States during the unification of Italy.

As a baptised Catholic (I do not use the term 'Roman') I have never felt comfortable with the overwhelming Italian influence in the Vatican, I would be far more comfortable if the HQ was somewhere different.

BTW, if I were a religious person I would have gone Church of England many moons ago.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top