Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 40      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next   »
WhiteCockade

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 316
Reply with quote  #31 

It is my understanding that the states formed the union with the understanding that they had the right to secession. Am I wrong? If this right was understood, then forcing an alternative reading of the Constitution a near century later would be unlawful.  


__________________
"By me kings reign... and the mighty decree justice" - Proverbs 8:15-16
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Catholicmonarchists/
Bummer

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 16
Reply with quote  #32 

Quote:
La Marseillaise was played in the South in 1861 not in North

 

I just saw this...and am scratching my head to beat the band. Where'd you pull this from?

 

Bummer


__________________
http://www.seramas.com
http://www.poultryyouth.com
http://www.depianteinrome.blogspot.com
WhiteCockade

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 316
Reply with quote  #33 

  Obviously the perpetuity of the union can not be based on a document which itself was not perpetual.  I am not saying you are not correct, but I seem to recall many of the states, worried about the power of the new federal constitution, held that they could back out of it at anytime.  A strict reading of the Constitution seems to me to support this as Article X reserves to the states those powers which are not expressly prohibited it and I do not recall secession being prohibited in the constitution.   

   


__________________
"By me kings reign... and the mighty decree justice" - Proverbs 8:15-16
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Catholicmonarchists/
EricTheRed

Registered:
Posts: 31
Reply with quote  #34 
1. I dont know how well a monarchy would work in the U.S. All i think would happen is a civil war.

2. Yes, with the fall of Communism it is time for the Orthodox Monarchs of eastern europe return.


__________________
LONG LIVE THE TSAR!
Michael_15

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #35 
A United Kingdom of America would certainly be interesting... but I can't see it happening in my lifetime at least.

It would be lovely to see the Christian monarchies of Eastern Europe restored... and I would LOVE to see a Catholic King of Poland...


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #36 

Myself, I find it much more significant that the United States government offered an army command to Giuseppe Garibaldi rather than some people down south playing the French national anthem. Garibaldi, btw, only turned down the offer because he would not be the supreme commander (?!?!). The north also had "Republican Clubs" all over the country to support the Mexican leader Benito Juarez against Emperor Maximilian and when the US Congress voted an official condemnation of the Hapsburg monarchy in Mexico it was stated outright that the danger was that monarchy might find a foothold in North America and start to become popular again.

 

European visitors to the Confederacy, such as British Lt Colonel Arthur Freemantle, noted how much the South was like the Old World transplanted. I would also point out that many historians have pointed to the Jacobite risings, and the immigration of Jacobites mostly to the south, as a reason for the culture in Dixie of loving a "lost cause". And it is not hard to see why the War of Northern Aggression and the American Revolution are totally different things. The states were sovereign and had a right to secede (hence Jefferson Davis was never tried for treason) while the colonies had no such sovereignty and no such right (hence George, Ben and Tom *would* have been tried and executed for treason if caught).

 

The attitude of the Pope was favorable to the south, and it is no surprise. The principle of states' rights fit in nicely with the Catholic principle of subsidiarity and the Pope himself was at that very time the victim of another nationalist war of forced unification in Italy, and I'm sure it did not impress him when his archenemy, the radical, republican atheist Garibaldi was offered the rank of General in the Union army. The death of the Confederacy also spelled the death of the monarchy in Mexico, and forget Napoleon III for a moment, and remember that Maximilian was a Hapsburg, a descendant of the very first Imperial Family to rule Mexico. Further, had the Mexican Empire survived, there were plans on the table for similar efforts in Central America and South America where a "Kingdom of the Andes" was being discussed.



Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #37 

Incidentally I recently came across a pro-southern secession website which can be found at: http://www.civilwarhome.com/secessionjustification.htm where I found the arguments stressing the legality of state secession, to be most compelling. I also note that when ex PM Jean Chretien went to the Canadian Supreme Court, concerning the legality of Quebec secession from Canada; the court ruled that although no mention of secession was made in the British North America Act of 1867, that created Canada, the court ruled that since the provinces joined confederation of their own free will, they also had an implicit right to secede in the same manner; so long as a clear majority of people backed independance in a referendum, with the federal government & the other provinces having little choice but to arrange terms of secession with the province in question.

 

Thus the point I raise is: Since secession is not regarded as a problem here despite its lack of mention in the Canadian constitution, how can a similar silence in the US constitution be used to justify a ban on secession there? Any clarifications on the matter would be most appreciated.



Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #38 

Guelp4ever, Jeff Davis was indicted for treason, but the charges were dropped by the prosecution. The 14th amendment's attainder against him was not lifted until 1978.

 

English Royalist, there was no ban in the Constitution. The actions of the seceding states was perfectly legal and constitutional. This was recognised post bellum by the passage of an  Act of Congress outlawing secession (1866, I believe).

 

 

Gary

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 8
Reply with quote  #39 
Err...excuse me and with all due respect to fellow posters - but what makes Catholocism any better or more acceptable to God than just being a believer in Jesus as the Christ? I don't see anywhere in my Bible that God favors one denomination over another...as the words of Jesus make it very simple to understand. I have friends who are Catholic - born again Catholics  - but they don't believe that Catholocism is any better or more "divine" than any other truly Christian faith. I can sit in a garage for 8 hours each day, but that doesn't make me a car...so what would make a Catholic monarch any better in the site of the Lord than another true believer in the Lord?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueEmperor

I support the idea of restorations anywhere where they are possible. However, I'm afraid I'm not much of a 'legitimist' in that respect. My opinion is that the best person to be monarch - where a restoration is involved - is the person most fit for the job. I don't think I could really, for example, support a restoration in a country where the claimant is some motor mechanic or businessman who has been living outside of the country all of his life. Where good claimants exist - such as in Austria in the person of HIRH The Archduke Otto (despite his being a paneuropeanist) or Romania in the person of King Michael - I think there is a strong case for restoration.

 

In other cases, I think we can be more utilitarian. For example, with the successional dispute raging on in Russia between Prince Nicholas and the Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna and 'Prince' Nicholas Romanovich, I don't see any reason why Russian monarchists couldn't get behind a 'unity candidate' in the person of HRH Prince Michael of Kent. Yes, a member of the British Royal Family, very biased of me. But it is my understanding that Prince Michael is extremely popular in Russia, not least because of his remarkable genetic resemblance to the last Tsar, Emperor Nicholas II. At least there'd be some hope of a restoration in Russia if Russians actually thought Prince Michael might be interested. I don't think Russians will ever support restoration in significant numbers with the current bickering claimants.

 

B.E.


__________________
Maranatha...


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #40 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary
Err...excuse me and with all due respect to fellow posters - but what makes Catholocism any better or more acceptable to God than just being a believer in Jesus as the Christ? I don't see anywhere in my Bible that God favors one denomination over another...as the words of Jesus make it very simple to understand. I have friends who are Catholic - born again Catholics  - but they don't believe that Catholocism is any better or more "divine" than any other truly Christian faith. I can sit in a garage for 8 hours each day, but that doesn't make me a car...so what would make a Catholic monarch any better in the site of the Lord than another true believer in the Lord?


Sorry Gary, Christ came to found a Church. He said "There is one fold and one shepherd." That Church and that fold is the One, Holy, Roman, Catholic and Apostolc Church and the one shepherd is our Holy Father, Benedict XVI. As to your "Catholic" friends, I will pray for them to return to the Faith, which they have obviously lost (It is Catholic doctrine that the Church of Christ subsists only in the Roman Catholic Church), as I will pray for you to find the comforting joy of membership in the only Church Christ founded and which has existed with out break for almost 2.000 years.
WhiteCockade

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 316
Reply with quote  #41 

Gary,

 

Please tolerate us being here.  As for your friends, well you can find "Catholics" who believe or say just about anything.   I am not the moderator, but it seems to me a debate on  the Catholic Church’s claim to have the True Faith and to be the one true Church of Christ is rather off topic to the discussion of monarchy. 


__________________
"By me kings reign... and the mighty decree justice" - Proverbs 8:15-16
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Catholicmonarchists/
Gary

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 8
Reply with quote  #42 
My message was merely in response to a posting about the necessity of monarchs being Catholic. Sorry, I am new to the board so I didn't post it in the correct position. And I agree, this is not a board on which to debate which denomination is "right" and which is "wrong"...all I know is that one thing and one thing alone is necessary - to believe that Jesus is the resurrected Christ (the Anointed One) and that He is the only way to our Heavenly Father, the only truth and the only light. So as long as this revelation is the basis of our faith, and a monarch's faith, we are truly Christians in the sight of God, regardless of earthly labels. The Greek text  says that "upon this revelation (that I am the Anointed Son of God) I will build my church, my body"...May God bless us all who believe!

__________________
Maranatha...
Gary

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 8
Reply with quote  #43 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jovan66102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary
Err...excuse me and with all due respect to fellow posters - but what makes Catholicism any better or more acceptable to God than just being a believer in Jesus as the Christ? I don't see anywhere in my Bible that God favors one denomination over another...as the words of Jesus make it very simple to understand. I have friends who are Catholic - born again Catholics  - but they don't believe that Catholicism is any better or more "divine" than any other truly Christian faith. I can sit in a garage for 8 hours each day, but that doesn't make me a car...so what would make a Catholic monarch any better in the site of the Lord than another true believer in the Lord?


Sorry Gary, Christ came to found a Church. He said "There is one fold and one shepherd." That Church and that fold is the One, Holy, Roman, Catholic and Apostolc Church and the one shepherd is our Holy Father, Benedict XVI. As to your "Catholic" friends, I will pray for them to return to the Faith, which they have obviously lost (It is Catholic doctrine that the Church of Christ subsists only in the Roman Catholic Church), as I will pray for you to find the comforting joy of membership in the only Church Christ founded and which has existed with out break for almost 2.000 years.


I respect you and your beliefs, and I hope you respect me and my beliefs. I am not sure what the basis is for your belief that your church is the one and only true church...nevertheless, with regard to monarchy:

Queen Elizabeth II is a Protestant - and she is a born again Christian monarch...is she doomed to hell because she is a Protestant monarch? Just wondering...thanks.

__________________
Maranatha...
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,793
Reply with quote  #44 
I'm not Catholic, but believe I can speak for my Catholic friends when I say that a Catholic monarchist loyal to Queen Elizabeth II would pray for her conversion to Catholicism during her life, pray for her soul after her death, and leave the rest to God.  A Catholic does not claim to know what has happened to the soul of any specific deceased person except for those canonized by the Church as saints, who can be assumed to be in Heaven.  However, a Catholic who takes his or her faith seriously must proceed under the assumption that it is objectively necessary for salvation for each and every person to die a Catholic in the state of grace.

I realize this is difficult for Protestants to accept (well, I suppose, impossible, since one who fully accepted it would cease to be a Protestant), but please try to understand that orthodox Catholics reject the whole concept of "denominations."  For a Catholic, there is only one Church, the Roman Catholic Church.  To be a Christian in the full sense is to be a Catholic. 

This was in fact objectively the case in Western Europe for the first 1500 years of Christianity--the terms "Christian" and "Catholic" were interchangeable.  Even in the East, the Orthodox were not originally as unanimously and consistently conscious of their separation from the Roman Catholic Church as they eventually became.

For Catholics, the "Reformation" was a tragedy which ended this unity of Western Christians.  From the Catholic point of view, it does not make sense to "follow the Bible" while rejecting the [Catholic] Church, since the Church existed before the Christian Bible and was in fact the authority responsible for deciding which books would be part of the Bible and which would not.

I realize that many "non-denominational" Christians also claim to reject the "denomination" concept and even the label of "Protestant," insisting that they are simply "Christians."  But from the Catholic perspective, anyone professing faith in Christ who does not accept the authority of either the Catholic or Orthodox Churches (or the much smaller apostolic Churches which have broken away from them over the years) is a "Protestant" whether he accepts the label or not, since his way of practicing Christianity owes its existence to the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century and did not exist before then.

Five hundred years ago, before Martin Luther, was it necessary for a Christian to be a member of the Catholic or Orthodox churches?  The Protestant must answer "yes," since there was no other way of being Christian at that time.  If so, how and at what point could it cease to be necessary?

I myself am not Catholic because I am not a Christian.  However, I am firmly convinced that if I were to become a Christian, I would need to be a Roman Catholic as Jesus of Nazareth could not have possibly wanted his followers to be divided among different churches, and the Roman Catholic Church has the most plausible claim [if Christianity is true] to be the one true church.

Gary

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 8
Reply with quote  #45 
But on what authority - where is this written - that the one and only true "church" is the Catholic church? When asked "what must I do to be saved" the Ethiopian wasn't told "join the Catholic Church". He was told " believe in your heart that Jesus is the Son of God, and that God has raised Him from the dead, and you will be saved (born again)."

I believe that God weeps at the division that man and man alone has forced into His Body - who is a part of His Body? Read the Scriptures...anyone - anyone - who believes in Jesus as the risen Son of the Living God. Monarch - slave - God is no respecter of persons...as long as we believe this we will meet one day in His presence.


__________________
Maranatha...
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.