Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Who's who among PM monarchists


Aloysius

Recommended Posts

homeschoolmom

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 18 2006, 09:13 AM']I'm a family feudalist
[right][snapback]859654[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
We asked 100 jesters, "Name something that you can't live without."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it depends how far you want to take monarchy.

If there was a really good line of people who would in some way hold more power than an assembly i think that it might be a good idea. THis is based on the fact that they would have to be good kings/queens. Their children would have to be raised to be good.

I think that America would never survive as a monarchy. People are to much about doing it my way instead of a king's way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Desert Walker

Monarchies are the most perfect form of government among people, when the king fears God more than anything else in the universe. This is why the culture of the monarchy MUST be unadulterated Catholic Christendom.

I am a monarchist because Christ is a good king. Jesus runs a simply smashing kingdom, eh folks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Jan 18 2006, 12:33 PM']Monarchies are the most perfect form of government among people, when the king fears God more than anything else in the universe.  This is why the culture of the monarchy MUST be unadulterated Catholic Christendom.

I am a monarchist because Christ is a good king.  Jesus runs a simply smashing kingdom, eh folks?
[right][snapback]859942[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

dashingly and smashingly well said DW; jolly good of you to comment!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a monarchist to a degree. In today's industrial society, I think a monarchy is the best form of a government to run it effeciently. Otherwise, in an agrarian society, I'd support more of a confederacy and local power. Switzerland was a good example of this. However, I do not believe there is such thing as a perfect form of government, as governements are of this world and naturally have many imperfections. Thus, I do not buy that monarchy is the highest form of government, even with Plato and Aristotle's backing. That said, God save the Romanovs and their descendents!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laudate_Dominum

I think a lot of post-enlightenment folk tend to more or less equate monarchy with dictatorship, but this is not so. For me it is not merely monarchy that I should like to see restored, but the noble class and the entire world order that goes along with it. Hereditary succession based on noble birth, a hierarchical society, etc.. And this is not the same as a caste system.

I would also like to see Knights and the bard class. I personally would want to be a warrior bard. :cloud9:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Desert Walker

[quote name='Krostandt' date='Jan 18 2006, 01:16 PM']I am a monarchist to a degree.  In today's industrial society, I think a monarchy is the best form of a government to run it effeciently.  Otherwise, in an agrarian society, I'd support more of a confederacy and local power.  Switzerland was a good example of this.  However, I do not believe there is such thing as a perfect form of government, as governements are of this world and naturally have many imperfections.  Thus, I do not buy that monarchy is the highest form of government, even with Plato and Aristotle's backing.  That said, God save the Romanovs and their descendents!
[right][snapback]860004[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well, I DID say that there were two necessary conditions for a monarchy to be classified as the "perfect" form of government. These conditions seem only to exist for a short time in our world though; usually only in one lifetime. So monarchies ARE rather inherently imperfect. What about a monarchy governed not by one man or woman, but by the "elders" or the "wise" of a society. That is what you are referring to when you say "local power" is it not?

I think the political philosophy of Plato and Aristotle is slightly flawed compared to their moral or cosmological considerations anyway. I wouldn't look to them to support such a system, although Aristotle's hierarchical cosmology seems to lead inevitably to a monarchical system of government among men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't understand the false dichotemy between "papist" and "monarchist"

The pope crowned Charlamagne. Good Christian Kings live under the kingship over the whole world that the Vicar of Christ enjoys (to an extent, he certainly does not hold the authority nor the capacity to micromanage the whole world).

Anyway, you only hear about the bad kings because that's what makes interesting history. There are long histories of long lines of good kings through Christendom. What better way to train and form a ruler than to teach him from birth what it means to rule? Surely it's better than our trial by election that does nothing but teach them how to lie to please the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It's good to be king and have your own world
It helps to make friends, it's good to meet girls
A sweet little queen who can't run away
It's good to be king, whatever it pays"

~ Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers "It's Good to Be King"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]The pope crowned Charlamagne.[/quote]
Although, it should not be forgotten that this was inspired by part of the infamous forgery Domition of Constantine. Also, I think the pope was more inspired by the political support of good Ol'e Carl, than his religious devotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, The Donation of Constantine alegdly was Constantine giving the Pope of Rome, Pope Sylvester I believe, power over all of the lands in the West of the Roman Empire. The Pope in turn could grant local kings rulership of land. This was the principle behind Charlemegne's coronation. This document was also used to boister papal supremecy claims. The thing is, it's a fake. It was written in the seventh century (I'll double check this later) and was proved to be a forgery in the 1200's.
So actually, it has a lot to do with old Charlemagne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but the pope still coronated Charlemagne is my point.

that the Donation of Constantine is forged doesn't change that fact, nor that the papacy does include in a sense that the vicar of Christ has authority over the whole world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...