Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


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

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #31 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
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?


Doing the bare minimum of proper behaviour is hardly generosity, at least objectively. One can admire another -- at least naturally -- for the strength it took him to go against normal practice, the sanctions of society, and perhaps some of his own false opinions; but when he is objectively only doing his duty and being obedient to his state in life, he should not be lauded as a famously magnanimous man. A simple nod of approval is more appropriate.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #32 
Your diatribe doesn't even address, much less answer the question.


__________________
"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
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,776
Reply with quote  #33 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers

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.


I'm actually not entirely sure which King George you're talking about here.  But in any case (and this is addressed, for different reasons, to both Baron and CTEQR!), the Holy See has always recognized as legitimate the reigning monarchs of Great Britain from 1766 onwards.  Pius VI opposed the 1798 Irish rebellion, just as Gregory XVI sided with Tsar Nicholas I against the Polish revolutionaries in 1831.  The fact that there have been few if any formal excommunications over this issue doesn't mean that the popes encouraged such rebellions.  (This reminds me of the debate over Pius XII during World War II.  The fact that he didn't excommunicate Hitler does not mean he approved of Hitler!)  Excommunication is an extreme "weapon" best used extremely sparingly.  (I know that Baron and Peter agree with me that St. Pius V could have used some of that caution with regard to Elizabeth I.)  There are lots of things popes can and should do without excommunicating people.   And the Republic of Ireland's constitution was actually too secular for Rome's taste anyway.

That said, I would have liked to see stronger condemnations of the IRA from Paul VI and John Paul II.  (I'm actually not sure, what, if anything, they ever said about The Troubles.)  But traditionalists like CTEQR don't care much for those popes anyway...




Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #34 
The lack of influence from Rome really frustrated the Troubles. I think if the Papacy had taken a larger role and visited Ireland more, alot of the turmoil may have been avoided, and it may have saved some lives. That said, things seemed to have gradually worked out on their own. The church not taking a greater interest in Ireland has seen a larger secularization as the church not doing more has had similar affects throughout the former RC world.
I think Hitler and any other man who or woman who has used Catholicism at one time in their lives and then gone on some war path killing millions should be irrefutably excommunicated from the church. Pius XII should have excommunicated Hitler; no questions asked.
I do believe he disapproved of the Nazis, and he did alot to help Jews during the Holocaust, but I think he could have done more. But his position may have been that by booting Hitler, he may have had alot of other people's blood on his hands, and possibly his own eventually.

On a side not Theo, the church REFUSED to take a larger role in Ireland's constitution anyway...
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #35 

Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers

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.


I'm actually not entirely sure which King George you're talking about here. 


When I wrote I couldn't remember if V or VI should follow....
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello

But in any case (and this is addressed, for different reasons, to both Baron and CTEQR!), the Holy See has always recognized as legitimate the reigning monarchs of Great Britain from 1766 onwards.  Pius VI opposed the 1798 Irish rebellion, just as Gregory XVI sided with Tsar Nicholas I against the Polish revolutionaries in 1831.  The fact that there have been few if any formal excommunications over this issue doesn't mean that the popes encouraged such rebellions.


Point taken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello

  (This reminds me of the debate over Pius XII during World War II.  The fact that he didn't excommunicate Hitler does not mean he approved of Hitler!)  Excommunication is an extreme "weapon" best used extremely sparingly.  (I know that Baron and Peter agree with me that St. Pius V could have used some of that caution with regard to Elizabeth I.) 


To a degree it is the inconsistency of application - or more the consistency of its use against the Crown, and never for it, that bothers me a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello

There are lots of things popes can and should do without excommunicating people.   And the Republic of Ireland's constitution was actually too secular for Rome's taste anyway.

That said, I would have liked to see stronger condemnations of the IRA from Paul VI and John Paul II.  (I'm actually not sure, what, if anything, they ever said about The Troubles.)  But traditionalists like CTEQR don't care much for those popes anyway...




__________________
"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  #36 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
Your diatribe doesn't even address, much less answer the question.


That is because I find the question to presuppose false premises and morally could not answer it in such a way that would make me complicit in propagating the perception of legitimacy for said premises.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 429
Reply with quote  #37 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers

To a degree it is the inconsistency of application - or more the consistency of its use against the Crown, and never for it, that bothers me a bit.


It's used by different popes (and bishops) in different ways. They generally aren't issued en masse, although there has been precedent. In many cases today, such as the whole women "priest" debacles, the Vatican does not issue excommunications, it merely states (for clarity's sake) that by the peoples' actions, they excommunicate themselves.

Excommunication is also seen as a path toward healing. If one's faith in the Church is important to them, if excommunicated, they will seek to repent, so they might not be cut off from the sacraments and salvation.

Finally, excommunication is used to keep error from propagating. There is much less harm in an unknown person violating church teaching than a high-profile person, such as a politician, king, movie star, etc. doing so. It is much more important for the Bishops to correct, say, Nancy Pelosi, when she lies about Catholic theology, than it is to correct my wife's grandmother, who is a member of Voice of the Faithful (a group of heretics that seek to make the church into a democracy).
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #38 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ContraTerrentumEQR
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
Your diatribe doesn't even address, much less answer the question.


That is because I find the question to presuppose false premises and morally could not answer it in such a way that would make me complicit in propagating the perception of legitimacy for said premises.

Which part of the statement do you hold to be based on false premise?


__________________
"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
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,776
Reply with quote  #39 
I suspect that CTEQR is referring to his belief that all British monarchs since 1688 have been illegitimate, a position that my rules do not allow him to promote on this forum.
ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #40 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
I suspect that CTEQR is referring to his belief that all British monarchs since 1688 have been illegitimate, a position that my rules do not allow him to promote on this forum.


Actually, I was referring to the idea that George III was being generous by respecting the Catholic Faith of the Québécois and Spanish Floridians. My point was that, objectively, his behaviour was ordinary and that he only met the requirements of decency, not exceeding them since respecting the Catholic Faith is an obligation for all persons. It seems a bit ridiculous, philosophically, to consider a man exceptional for his performance of the most basic duty.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #41 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ContraTerrentumEQR
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
I suspect that CTEQR is referring to his belief that all British monarchs since 1688 have been illegitimate, a position that my rules do not allow him to promote on this forum.


Actually, I was referring to the idea that George III was being generous by respecting the Catholic Faith of the Québécois and Spanish Floridians. My point was that, objectively, his behaviour was ordinary and that he only met the requirements of decency, not exceeding them since respecting the Catholic Faith is an obligation for all persons. It seems a bit ridiculous, philosophically, to consider a man exceptional for his performance of the most basic duty.

Well, the generosity was not in the respecting of the Roman Church - that was a part of the treaty affangement.

However respecting the previously established 'common law';
respecting the 'native language' in as far as possible;
Calling for local councils from among the inhabitants (evenly);
Permiting the removal from the newly gained lands the property as well as the persons (of the people, not only the King);

These were 'generosities'.

The Irish issues weren't limited to the Roman Church, the generosity in representation, the 'native laws', and the language were part of my question.

The question stands.

__________________
"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
LegitimistJacobite

Registered:
Posts: 218
Reply with quote  #42 

I have rather neglected this group recently, having been otherwise occupied (partly with a very enjoyable trip to Savannah, Georgia).  Thus I come late to this debate.  Please forgive me if I ignore the somewhat tangential discussion of the island of Ireland and its woes, and return to the original point.

 

It certainly seems highly consistent that a Catholic should be a monarchist.  Catholic social teaching is much misrepresented, even by some bishops and episcopal conferences.  The Church teaches that all humans share a certainly equality and common dignity, as we are all made in the image and likeness of God.  She has never, however, taught egalitarianism.  Rerum Novarum and other such magisterial teachings are clear that inequalities of position and rank, based on ability, wealth and birth, are natural to mankind, and indeed necessary.  What the Church teaches is that the different ranks of society should work together, and that they have duties to each other.

 

The king is an officer of the Christian society.  Aquinas wrote on this.  He also made it clear that rebellion against a legitimate monarch is never licit.  But the Church has never supported monarchical absolutism, in which the king stands above and outside society, either.  Apart from anything else, absolutism tended to lead to Caesaro-papism, and the subordination of the Church’s interests to those of the state.  But the sacerdotal order stands above the kingly order, as the Law of God is superior to all human law. This was asserted by Pope Gelasius I in his letter of 494 Duo Quippe Sunt.  The Roman Pontiff has the right to depose kings, and release subjects from allegiance to them.  This power could not be exercised in any meaningful way at the moment, and caused much tension in the middle ages when popes attempted to exercise it.  Nevertheless, Boniface VII’s bull Unam Sanctam has not been, and cannot be, repealed

 

And the Church has never taught that monarchy is the sole way for societies to organise themselves.  Other forms of government existed in the middle ages. 

 

I realise that I am failing to make an entirely coherent point here.  The fact is, since joining this forum, I have been forced to rethink a lot of my ideas, which is a very good thing.  What I often took for granted, I now see that I nave to think through in order to justify it.  If I ever have the time, I would like to write a full theological justification of kingship (well, legitimism, actually!).  I know it can be done, but I really I would need to do a lot of reading, and I simply do not have the time.

 

And could anyone formulate a theology of so called constitutional monarchy, such as we have in Britain and elsewhere at the moment?

 

BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #43 
A good start for that formulary would be in the King and Priest relationship in Early Israel (Even then the King was not above the Law (tough in that case the Law was given by God) as written.

The Council of Solomon showing that even the wisest man ever had his councillors (and that if his son had followed them the kingdom wouldn't have been wrought in twain).

Keeping the Law of God and the Law of Man in separate domains would be attested to by the writings of the Apostles and by the story of the temporal sword's use by the Apostles being condemned by our Lord.




__________________
"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
LegitimistJacobite

Registered:
Posts: 218
Reply with quote  #44 

Yes, I agree.  I would like to start with scripture and work from there.

BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #45 
It was the Scripture that lead me to Monarchism....




__________________
"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
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.