Aloysius Posted January 19, 2006 Author Share Posted January 19, 2006 I'd like to see a resurection of Christendom in the west and Byztantium in the east. Call me a dreamer, but I think it could happen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krostandt Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 [quote name='Aloysius' date='Jan 18 2006, 11:22 PM']I'd like to see a resurection of Christendom in the west and Byztantium in the east. Call me a dreamer, but I think it could happen! [right][snapback]860600[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Here, Here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krostandt Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 And the Holy Empire of Krostandt, now totally 400 sq feet in his apt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catholicinsd Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 How can Americans be good Americans and Monarchists at the same time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krostandt Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Well, I'll answer that question in several ways. First of all, as a monarchist, I do not question the legitimacy of America's government (although some laws), nor the constitution. However, it is my personal belief that a monarchy is a better form of government. Despite this, I remain loyal to my country. If I was called to fight for her, I would. I salute the flag, honour our holidays and our past. Personally, I do not think a monarchy would work well in the United States, but a more locally controlled government, but that is due to the differences of cultures in this country. Here's an analogy (but a poor one). I'm a Yankees fan and support them always, although personally I think that the National league is better. I think the designated Hitter is evil, and enjoy the oldness in it and personally wish that the Yankees would be an even better team if they could play in the NL. That said, I still support the Yankees, even though I think the NL's better, because it's my team. Likewise, I still support the United States, even though I think monarchy is a superiour form of government, because its my country. Also, however, I firmly believe that there can be no perfect government in a fallen world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustthouart Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 (edited) I don't think the Church should have temporal authority, because it invites corruption. I think all the people in the world should be Catholics, and that politicians and rulers should be driven by Catholic morals. But the Pope as temporal leader, for example... it was a disaster in the Renaissance! Alexander VI, Julius II... And the idea of one government over all the world, where the governer isn't Jesus, really frightens me. Also there's no way to guarentee a good king. People raised in the best families can go wrong. And good kings can be overthrown by bloody revolts, assassinated by relatives... That's the way it is. This world is fallen, remember? Not everything about "the good old days" was good! (A lesson for the SSPX schismatics?) So, I'm not a monarchist. I like distributism though. I am heavily into social justice, as the Church teaches we should all be. Edited January 19, 2006 by dustthouart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruso Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 [quote name='Aloysius' date='Jan 19 2006, 02:53 AM']I guess I just don't see the relevence. I put it up as an example that the papacy can exist in harmony with monarchies even if the pope did it under the impression that the donation of constantine gave him that authority, it's still a good example. [right][snapback]860458[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Carlos I of Spain and V fo Germany, he was catholic, if the lutheranism dont extend more by Europe were for he and your son Felipe II. But when it had problems with the Pope, he attack Rome and annihilate the Swiss guard. History this flood of problems between the kings of Spain, France, Austria, and already in XIX century Italy, with the Papado. The kings of Spain, France and Austria they can to prevent the appointment of a nonfavorable Pope to them, happened but of once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Walker Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 [quote name='Aloysius' date='Jan 18 2006, 09:22 PM']I'd like to see a resurection of Christendom in the west and Byztantium in the east. Call me a dreamer, but I think it could happen! [right][snapback]860600[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Such a thing would establish that which is the dream of liberation theologians. This is my firm conviction. LTs think that a relaxation of Church law will bring about a more effective social justice movement. The reality is that without Church law there can be no true justice for people. May the return of Christendom come to pass in our time good sirs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jan 18 2006, 01:52 PM']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. [right][snapback]860048[/snapback][/right] [/quote] OK L_D, we're not talking D&D here... cloud nine.. methinks you're dreaming a wee bit too much. Wake up and smell the nahs man! I agree with most of what you put actually, except that power in a hierachy or monarchy should not be passed with hereditary successioin. That was one of the major flaws of old! Look at the success story behind the Mongols of old to se the difference. Mongols rose in ranks from deeds and valor, rather than inheritence; and their ranks where very well stocked compared to their contemporaries. They went over 200 years without losing a single battle! (Catholics where the ones to finally hand them a defeat - whooot!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted January 19, 2006 Author Share Posted January 19, 2006 [quote name='Didacus' date='Jan 19 2006, 11:23 AM']I agree with most of what you put actually, except that power in a hierachy or monarchy should not be passed with hereditary successioin. That was one of the major flaws of old! [right][snapback]860945[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I disagree with the modern notion that hereditary succession was a flaw. That's basically calling the family a flaw. A child raised from birth to be a good leader will most likely end up a good leader, and I believe history will back me up on this with the majority of kings who were raised from birth to be kings. Of course, we only hear about the bad ones and the currupt ones because, well, western history lessons are all about beating western civilization up (comes out of that Christian legacy thing, self-conscience and all ). But there was a lot of greatness to the royalty of yore, and a lot of that greatness was precisely because of the system of rule that was familial. Of course, it is a myth that the medieval feudal system was a caste system. You very well could move classes, it was possible. I think I once saw statistics that say it may have happened more commonly back then than it does nowaday (you know, the poor stay poor and the rich get richer, happens all the time). Oh, and to the Liberation Theology comment: absolutely no marxist ideas have any place in a real Christendom. marxism and socialism and communism are all absolutely evil and condemned by the Church, Christendom never embodied them and never will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Well Aloy, you have a point, but I keep my ground. 1. to alude that disagreeing with the hereditary system is akin to attacking the family is a fallacy, please try to stay above these things. It was not my intent whatsoever to attck the family institution. Also, it does not mean that a son cannot be king after his father either! If the son is worthiest amongst his peers, then so be it; but let not the singular argument of family determine the root of power - please! So many arguments can go aginst that! Do you really want me to inumerate them? (quick check if we are on the debate board; carp, no we're not... but open mic is good enough) "Blood is thicker than water is a lie invented by undeserving kins." Shakespeare (I hear some of you around here are a fan of this guy...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 [quote]I disagree with the modern notion that hereditary succession was a flaw. That's basically calling the family a flaw. [/quote] I doubt Didace is ripping on the family. He may be critiquing the notion of "royals breeding with royals" which indeed proved to be a flaw. Did I say indeed? I mean inbreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Walker Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 (edited) [quote]Oh, and to the Liberation Theology comment: absolutely no marxist ideas have any place in a real Christendom. marxism and socialism and communism are all absolutely evil and condemned by the Church, Christendom never embodied them and never will. [/quote] Essentially what I was saying. Liberation Theology is trying to sweep the floor with a single strand of hair while wearing boots caked with mud. Christendom uses a broom. Edited January 19, 2006 by Desert Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted January 19, 2006 Author Share Posted January 19, 2006 I didnt say you were attacking the family. I'm saying that hereditary monarchy makes the rulers a family... the only way it doesn't work is if the family doesn't work. I think family is the absolute best way of determining succession. This 'whoever merits it' stuff will do nothing but cause tons of bickering and squabbles after the monarch's death, no better than the bickering that goes on in democracy. at the very least the monarch should have to choose his successor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Yeah but you must admit that inbreeding was a major downer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now