Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


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

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,289
Reply with quote  #46 

God's law and the laws imposed by humans are different. Rule of Law reffers to the later.

BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #47 
And your point is?????????

__________________
"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
ProudCanadian

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,289
Reply with quote  #48 

That one can be above human law but not divine law. Absolute monarchs are still restricted by the laws of the Almighty God.



Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #49 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProudCanadian

That one can be above human law but not divine law. Absolute monarchs are still restricted by the laws of the Almighty God.

 
Then they are not, ipso facto, absolute.
ProudCanadian

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,289
Reply with quote  #50 

They are absolute in that they are subject to no earthly power. There is no one, has been no one and will be no one that is not subject to the Almighty Creator of the Cosmos.



Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #51 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProudCanadian

They are absolute in that they are subject to no earthly power. There is no one, has been no one and will be no one that is not subject to the Almighty Creator of the Cosmos.

 
My point was that if the monarch admits that he is subject to the Laws of God, he is not absolute. The absolutism derived from the Reception of Roman Law makes no such admission.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #52 
An Absolute King recognizes only his own authority.

Think Nero, (and James VI & I, to a degree the rest of the Stuarts.....)


__________________
"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
DeMaistre

Registered:
Posts: 165
Reply with quote  #53 
Perhaps a Catholic can elaborate, but I believe after the disastrous Second Vatican Council, the Roman Pontiff has taken on more the role of the leader of a republic or something in of that nature, as opposed to that of a king. The most obvious indication of this is that he now wears a mitre, as the rest of the bishops, instead of the triregnum. (Although the tiara was never a liturgical vestment like a mitre, it was symbolic of the kingship of the Pope. The mitre on the other hand seems to indicate a "first among equals" status).
__________________
Benedict XV - Benedict XVI - Pretenders to the Papal Throne

St. Pius V - Greatest monarch to ever grace this earth
CaesarII

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 585
Reply with quote  #54 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeMaistre
Perhaps a Catholic can elaborate, but I believe after the disastrous Second Vatican Council, the Roman Pontiff has taken on more the role of the leader of a republic or something in of that nature, as opposed to that of a king. The most obvious indication of this is that he now wears a mitre, as the rest of the bishops, instead of the triregnum. (Although the tiara was never a liturgical vestment like a mitre, it was symbolic of the kingship of the Pope. The mitre on the other hand seems to indicate a "first among equals" status).

Republic of what? You will have to explain that as I simply do not follow.

He is no longer sovereign of anything but the Vatican City-state, though that is thanks to the Italian nationalists.

The use of the crown had nothing to do with Vatican II (which didnt really touch on the issue, even in it's usual vague way). Paul VI, in a characteristic moment of theatrics, laid his (dreadfully ugly) crown on the High Altar of St. Peter's and never wore it again. Despite dimminishing the Papal ceremonial in favor of his preffered cult of personality, he did mandate a coronation and the use of the triregnum for future popes. John Paul I made it an option- which he opted out of himself- and John Paul II used the excuse that two papal deaths in a year should not occaision such a joyful event as a coronation- though he gladly outdid Paul VI in the cult of personality.

That said, the coronation is still an option- Benedict XVI was supposed to have originally planned for one, but was put off the idea by dissenting views in the Curia.

The actual power the popes have wielded has greatly fluctuated throughout the centuries. Only in the 20th C. have we seen this micromanagment, though at the same time most bishops simply pay lip service and do what they please.

Regardless, the Pope is have sovereign authority over the college of bishops. While unfortunate, the dropping of many of the trappings of that authority does not dimmish the fact. A crown does not make a king (if that were so, many modern day monarchs could not rightly be called such either).

Also, it must be remembered that the Church is not a temporal state. We cannot correctly label her as either a monarchy or a republic, or anything else for that matter, as those are terms used to describe states.
MadMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 68
Reply with quote  #55 
Pope John Paul II also had his own papal tiara, he just never wore it and as it was given to him some years after his election he never really would have had occasion to. The current Pope, if anything, has dramatically increased the amount of regal trappings, going back on alot of things that even the tiara-wearing Paul VI did. Look at any modern, liberal criticism of the current Pope and you are sure to see the word "regal" pop up and they do not mean it as a compliment.

Edit to add: CaesarII I have to tell you that is a brilliant quote in your signature, I have got to try to remember that one. Might not have been a good general but he certainly had the right attitude.


__________________
"They cannot understand as yet that we are not fighting a political party but a sect of murderers of all contemporary spiritual culture."
DeMaistre

Registered:
Posts: 165
Reply with quote  #56 
My apologies, I did not mean literally a republic. But one cannot deny that the Catholic Church is today much less a monarchy than it used to be. I understand that there are orthodox movements like the FSSPX that are trying to change that, such movements I admire.

EDIT: Does His Holiness, Benedictus XVI have a tiara? I was aware that his predecessor had one, but why he never wore it is beyond me. I do greatly admire the current Pope, I only wish he were more bold- but alas, he seems to be a timid tactician that calculates his moves very carefully, a wise thing to do.

EDIT: I very much like the quote in CaesarII's signature as well.

__________________
Benedict XV - Benedict XVI - Pretenders to the Papal Throne

St. Pius V - Greatest monarch to ever grace this earth
CaesarII

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 585
Reply with quote  #57 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeMaistre
My apologies, I did not mean literally a republic. But one cannot deny that the Catholic Church is today much less a monarchy than it used to be. I understand that there are orthodox movements like the FSSPX that are trying to change that, such movements I admire.

Some theologians, like the liberal Hans Kung, argue that the Pope today is much more monarchial- power-wise- then he was in the past. In what way do you mean?

DeMaistre

Registered:
Posts: 165
Reply with quote  #58 
I thought that Hans Kung was officially a heretic. My point is not the Pope himself, but the whole hierarchy of the Church in general. Can anyone deny that the Catholic Church is no longer perceived by the majority of the populace to be the towering power that it used to be, but rather a feel-good institution that promotes "peace" and "justice" and supports the New World Order (i.e., UN)? More later, I apologise if I seem to be avoiding the question.

__________________
Benedict XV - Benedict XVI - Pretenders to the Papal Throne

St. Pius V - Greatest monarch to ever grace this earth
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,790
Reply with quote  #59 
The Roman Catholic Church is still perceived by many people as monolithically reactionary, mainly due to its refusal to change its teaching on sexual matters, as absurd as that seems to most of us here.

Lawrence Auster, quoting Telegraph blogger Ed West, writes about this and responds to a critic here:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012779.html

MadMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 68
Reply with quote  #60 
The Catholic Church (along with all others) has always claimed to promote peace and justice, as does every other religion in the world. It is not the most powerful institution in the western world, true enough, but that did not happen by choice but as a result of a schism, a reformation and a number of political and cultural revolutions. If it is a "feel-good" institution then feeling good must not include women clergy, married clergy, homosexual acceptance, abortion, birth control, pre-marital sex and a whole host of other things most republics would consider mandatory.

The Catholic Church cannot help but be autocratic and monarchial; observe the "innovations" of Paul VI who is considered by many a "liberal" pope. His style was, 'we will be open and tolerant whether you like it or not because I said so!'

__________________
"They cannot understand as yet that we are not fighting a political party but a sect of murderers of all contemporary spiritual culture."
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.