Search results

This paper applies the Church's understanding of the dual nature -in one person- of Christ, human and divine, to the issue of the strained between the Church and the State, within the Creation and the History. This question is approached and analysed through two theological, ecclesiological and canonical categories, alterity (otherness) and communion , which are based on the antinomical conciliar formula of a (comm)union "without confusion and without division". With the help of the systematic and canonical theology of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), it has investigated the Christological question , according to the author, of the relationships between the Church and the State on a global level, in the name of the a double and symmetrical divergence: occurs: on the one hand, the autonomisation of otherness leading to the minorisation of communion, in other words, division and separation between Church and State arising from turning otherness into absolute autonomy (without any communion and relationship); and on the other hand, the alienation of communion causing confusion, and leading to the absorption of otherness , in other words, absorption of the weak locally established Church by the powerful State leading to "confusion" (in the Chalcedonian sense) - without any alterity. In the first case, priority is given to being "without confusion" at the detriment of being "without division" (communion), whereas in the second, we observe the predominance of "without division" and the total abolition of "without confusion" (otherness-autonomy). The author enshrines in Church, Body of Christ, its very nature a combination of alterity (otherness) and communion. He argues that these characteristics are undermined by the twin distortions of State infliction and untamed separation, which are marred the relations between these two entities, the Church and the State. For fifteen centuries now, this conception of relationships between the Church and the State has placed a burden at an ecumenical level. More precisely, the ecclesiological vision of the Council of Chalcedon was the simultaneous coexistence of otherness and communion between State and Church as a clearly paradoxical or antinomial feature of the christological mode of coexistence of the two natures of Christ: the human nature and the divine one. It naturally emerges that the coexistence of Church and State in a given state territory is realised through the acceptance of their ontological and institutional otherness and the preservation of communi(cati)on and relationship among them. Special reference is made to the case of the Political Dimension of the Church Eschatology.

England, France and Italy have opted, for political as well as historical and cultural reasons, for a very different type of regulation of their relations with the various Churches present on their territories, by choosing a system of Establishment, strict separation or concordat, today extended to agreements. The result is a matrimonial legislation that is a priori very varied from one country to another, as often illustrated by the example of the antinomy between the principle of the French civil marriage anteriority and the one of the Anglo-Italian matrimonial dualism. This impression must, however, be tempered by the fact that, on the one hand, a common Roman-Christian heritage is much more prevalent than it appears. Moreover, if, in the course of their national affirmation, the three States have sought, each in their own way, to take control of a certain number of matrimonial institutions, they have nevertheless only been able to do so while respecting certain democratic values, such as the freedom of conscience and religion. The solutions elaborated by the state courts on the occasion of litigations related to unrecognized religious marriages or contentious religious divorces are particularly explicit in this respect. The balance, both complex and delicate, thus achieved in the specific field of the law of couples tends, against all expectations, to bring these three States much closer together. ; L'Angleterre, la France et l'Italie ont opté, pour des raisons tant politiques qu'historiques et culturelles, pour une régulation très différente de leurs relations avec les diverses Églises présentes sur leur sol, en choisissant un système d'Establishment, de stricte séparation ou de concordat, aujourd'hui étendu aux ententes. Il en résulte une législation matrimoniale a priori très variée d'un pays à l'autre, souvent illustrée par l'exemple de l'antinomie entre le principe français de l'antériorité du mariage civil et celui du dualisme matrimonial anglo-italien. Cette impression est à cependant tempérer du ...

England, France and Italy have opted, for political as well as historical and cultural reasons, for a very different type of regulation of their relations with the various Churches present on their territories, by choosing a system of Establishment, strict separation or concordat, today extended to agreements. The result is a matrimonial legislation that is a priori very varied from one country to another, as often illustrated by the example of the antinomy between the principle of the French civil marriage anteriority and the one of the Anglo-Italian matrimonial dualism. This impression must, however, be tempered by the fact that, on the one hand, a common Roman-Christian heritage is much more prevalent than it appears. Moreover, if, in the course of their national affirmation, the three States have sought, each in their own way, to take control of a certain number of matrimonial institutions, they have nevertheless only been able to do so while respecting certain democratic values, such as the freedom of conscience and religion. The solutions elaborated by the state courts on the occasion of litigations related to unrecognized religious marriages or contentious religious divorces are particularly explicit in this respect. The balance, both complex and delicate, thus achieved in the specific field of the law of couples tends, against all expectations, to bring these three States much closer together. ; L'Angleterre, la France et l'Italie ont opté, pour des raisons tant politiques qu'historiques et culturelles, pour une régulation très différente de leurs relations avec les diverses Églises présentes sur leur sol, en choisissant un système d'Establishment, de stricte séparation ou de concordat, aujourd'hui étendu aux ententes. Il en résulte une législation matrimoniale a priori très variée d'un pays à l'autre, souvent illustrée par l'exemple de l'antinomie entre le principe français de l'antériorité du mariage civil et celui du dualisme matrimonial anglo-italien. Cette impression est à cependant tempérer du fait, d'une part, d'un héritage romano-chrétien commun beaucoup plus prégnant qu'il n'y paraît. En outre, si, au fil de leur affirmation nationale, les trois États de cette étude ont cherché, chacun à leur manière, à prendre le contrôle d'un certain nombre d'institutions matrimoniales, ils n'ont néanmoins pu le faire qu'en respectant certaines valeurs démocratiques, telles la liberté de conscience et de religion. Les solutions élaborées par les tribunaux étatiques à l'occasion de contentieux en lien avec des mariages religieux non reconnus ou de divorce religieux litigieux sont à ce titre particulièrement explicites. L'équilibre, à la fois complexe et délicat, ainsi atteint dans le domaine spécifique du droit des couples tend, contre toute attente, à finalement rapprocher bien plus ces trois États.

Ed. by Charles Péguy. ; Cover title. ; Mode of access: Internet.

At head of title: Le père Vincent Maumus. ; Mode of access: Internet.

L'église revendicatrice -- L'église et la démocratie -- L'église et la monarchie -- L'église et l'action sociale -- L'église et la liberté

"Extrait de la revue politique et parlementaire (octobre 1906)." ; Mode of access: Internet.