Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 5      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #16 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
Even if in communion with Rome, the link from Church governance to traditional national monarchy isn't as firm as all that. 

The Bishop's office isn't hereditary.  (despite certain middle period nephews)

The college of Cardinals isn't hereditary either - in fact, every good Western Rite boy can dream of the Papal Tiara. 

The Church is a Theocratic Meritocracy, not a Hereditary Monarchy.....

My apologies for not answering this directly as I should have.

When I say I am a monarchist because I am a Catholic, I am not saying that I am a monarchist because monarchial government resembles the government of the Church. Nor I am pushing the idea that any temporal government should resemble ecclesiastical government or vice versa. This is not about the form of government but the nature of it.


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #17 
Quote:
I haven't had much discussions with many people about this issues but those who have discussed it with me acknowledge that the argument is logical and sensible.  I am anxious to see how other members of my order and of the other military orders (Malta, Holy Sephulcre) feel...I have my opinion and I think they are not favorable..ironic isn't it?


I am not sure about the Knights of the Holy Sepulchre, but the Knights of Malta are heavily aristocratic (in Europe I believe nobility is a requisite for entrance into the order) and, based on my own experience with some of them, are quite supportive of monarchy and the old order.
jravago

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 58
Reply with quote  #18 
Both Orders have the rank of Knights of Merit or something equivalent for lay individuals (nobility is not required) who may be "aristocratic" in their attitude not in their title and I don't mean that in a positive way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pio
Quote:
I haven't had much discussions with many people about this issues but those who have discussed it with me acknowledge that the argument is logical and sensible.  I am anxious to see how other members of my order and of the other military orders (Malta, Holy Sephulcre) feel...I have my opinion and I think they are not favorable..ironic isn't it?


I am not sure about the Knights of the Holy Sepulchre, but the Knights of Malta are heavily aristocratic (in Europe I believe nobility is a requisite for entrance into the order) and, based on my own experience with some of them, are quite supportive of monarchy and the old order.

__________________
Joseph S. Ravago, KMCO

XP - IN HOC SIGNO VINCES
ProudCanadian

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,289
Reply with quote  #19 

To say that one is a Christian, Catholic, Protestant or Eastern Orthodox, and not believe in the principals of monarchy is to be a hypocrite.

clark

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,067
Reply with quote  #20 

At one point in the Church's history, it was debated as to whether or not coronation was a Sacrament.  In a Byzantine understanding Coronation actually is considered a "Mystery" like the 7 Mysteries (Sacraments), though their definition of Sacrament is broad enough to encompass many things the latins would call Sacramentals (which Coronation would be as well : p ) .

BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #21 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pio

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
Even at that the fathers electing the chief father isn't quite the same......
Nowhere else can every male have the hope of become the Sovereign.

In theory but not in practice. And then one must always remember that the Pope is not chosen by the will of the cardinals but by the will of God.


So to are presidents chosen by the will of God and not of the Electors.  The people still know of votes being taken...

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #22 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pio

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
The Republic of Ireland, right?

Actually Msgr. Healy was Archbishop of Tuam at a time when all of Ireland was still under the Crown of England.

Whose faithful Roman Subjects evicted the anointed of God...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pio

In any case, even had Ireland been a republic at the time he was not speaking of a president or a prime minister, but a king. Is your own opinion sullied because of your residence in a republic?

I judge them by the laity's rejection of them.  They prayed for the King, and rebelled still.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pio

I would not judge your words by the nation in which you live, but by the words themselves.


__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #23 
Quote:
Whose faithful Roman Subjects evicted the anointed of God...


Then they were not so faithful, were they?

Though to you being "faithful Romans" necessitates rebellion against anything of God, but I stand by my position that in rebelling against the Crown they were acting against what the faith demanded of them.
clark

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,067
Reply with quote  #24 

The ones really leading the revolt against the throne were most likely not faithful Catholics, but probably liberal revolutionaries. The common man Catholic probably went along with it out of a desire for better life, rather then with any problem with the crown. Better governance of the Island by the Crown would have kept Ireland as part of the Kingdom.

BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #25 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pio
Quote:
Whose faithful Roman Subjects evicted the anointed of God...


Then they were not so faithful, were they?


Certainly not to their King George, but no excommunication by the Bishop of Rome followed, nor do I recall any complaint made on his behalf over the overthrow of the king.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pio


Though to you being "faithful Romans" necessitates rebellion against anything of God, but I stand by my position that in rebelling against the Crown they were acting against what the faith demanded of them.

?
I think you've got the filter in backwards.

Rome declares me bound for hell because I don't accept everything they require.  I don't return the favour.

I have never said nor implied that being in Communion with (or faithful to) the Bishop of Rome "necessitates rebellion against anything of God".

I don't buy the 'papal supremacy' line.
I don't buy the 'sinless Mary' line.
I don't but the 'my way is The Way (and communion with me is necessary for salvation' line.


The things about which I disagree are to my mind minor errors,  the touch not the core of the faith.  In the view of Rome, they must be accepted to gain salvation, but in my view it is not necessary for them to be denied to be saved.

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #26 
Quote:
Originally Posted by clark

The ones really leading the revolt against the throne were most likely not faithful Catholics, but probably liberal revolutionaries. The common man Catholic probably went along with it out of a desire for better life, rather then with any problem with the crown. Better governance of the Island by the Crown would have kept Ireland as part of the Kingdom.


It would have had to start back at least as early as the interregnum.  Cromwell toasted the island.

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
clark

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,067
Reply with quote  #27 
I didn't say that it didn't start early. I would say part of the problem was firstly HM James I encouraging Scotish settlement in Ireland and granting them tracks of land on the island. Then we have Cromwell (not the monarchy's fault obviously). Of course the potato famine doesn't help matters. Really what I see as fault is

1. native gaels kept in poverty
2. laws restricting the Catholic church
3. racist views held by the english ( aka Mr. Swift's disturbing proposal)
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,665
Reply with quote  #28 
Swift was being satirical. That apart, it is hard to disagree with you, Ireland was far from well governed as part of the Kingdom. I think things were getting better when the Irish lost patience, and that both islands would have been better served by remaining united, but that is not to suggest that they should get back together politically. It will never happen.

Minor technical point, often forgotten if known in the first place; the Irish Free State was a monarchy. George V never ceased to be King of Ireland. George VI was the last King. Her present Majesty actually began her reign with the title Queen of Ireland, but it meant about as much as George III calling himself King of France (except, of course, that she did and does reign over a part of the island). It was just that no one had got around to changing the royal styles after the declaration of the Republic of Ireland.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #29 

Quote:
Originally Posted by clark
I didn't say that it didn't start early. I would say part of the problem was firstly HM James I encouraging Scotish settlement in Ireland and granting them tracks of land on the island. Then we have Cromwell (not the monarchy's fault obviously). Of course the potato famine doesn't help matters. Really what I see as fault is

1. native gaels kept in poverty
2. laws restricting the Catholic church
3. racist views held by the english ( aka Mr. Swift's disturbing proposal)

If George III had been as generous with the Irish as he was the former French and Spanish added to his domains in 1763, would that have been enough, do you think?


__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #30 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pio
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
The Republic of Ireland, right?

Actually Msgr. Healy was Archbishop of Tuam at a time when all of Ireland was still under the Crown of England.

Whose faithful Roman Subjects evicted the anointed of God...


There is disagreement about that, especially amongst Catholics. That is, hardly any Catholics disagree that subjects of the anointed of God have no authority to overthrow a King; disagreement is over whether a given 'King' is King, whether he is really legitimate and sovereign or not.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: