What form of govt. do you think is best?

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='avemaria40' date='Feb 13 2006, 11:50 PM']If Mary hadn't killed all those Protestants, they might have come back to the Church, or at least wouldn't have come to kill Catholics later on.  But seeing members of their own faith burned at the stake, they had decided that martyrdom was glorious and they hated the Church. 

I'd rather live with a govn't that lets people choose what they believe and gives them freedom, than one where i have nothing, am considered man's property, and where i have to worry about losing my head or being turned into ashes.  Popular sovereignty rules!  By the people, for the people:)

Not to say I don't want abortion or anything else that unnecessarily takes life illegal, because I do.  We all deserve the right to live, the right to dignity, and the right to mercy.
[right][snapback]886381[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The number of Protestants killed by Mary I (just over 300) is comparatively modest compared with the number of people put to death for religious reasons on the continent. Mary I's reputation has been dreadfully inflated by Foxe's book of martyrs and indeed much of the source material from her own time indicates her policies were supported by and large.

Mary I's actions against the Protestants have relatively little to do with Elizabeth I's policy against the Catholics. Elizabeth simply saw Catholicism as a political threat and punished Catholics accordingly. Moreover, most of Elizabeth's country were closed Catholics. After the revolt of the Catholic northern earls against Elizabeth her chief minister Cecil aka Baron Burghley did a survey which indicated that 66.66% of the northern Justices of the Peace were secret Catholics who turned a blind eye to Catholic practices. The people of England were by no means repelled by Mary's actions.

Most people in England at that time were non-committed. They'd seen the religion of the country change 4 times in a century and they weren't willing to put all their eggs in one basket. Very few people were committed to one side or the other they were simply willing to do what the Crown ordered and nod at it. The reason England became Protestant in the end was because Elizabeth's reign lasted so long people just got used to it. Even then though Calvinism was ruthlessly punished by Elizabeth via her favoured Archbishop, Whitgift. Elizabeth's brand of Protestantism, Anglicanism, was erastian in nature and tolerated no divergences therefrom.

Foxe's book of matyrs was placed in all churches by royal decree and children learnt the stories contained within (some of which are surely lies since Foxe ran away to Holland during Mary's reign so how he got this first hand evidence is quite perplexing). But to say people stayed Protestant because they decided matyrdom was glorious and that they hated Catholicism is mistaken. People stayed Protestant because Elizabeth told them too and fined and killed them if they didnt. Then their children were trained in the Sunday school system to be Protestant and because Lizzy lived so long their training sunk deep enough in to transform the nation and its racial predjudices into a very pecular Protestant country which was neither Calvinist or Lutheran but English, that is, Anglican.

As for democracy. Its overrated. In essence there's very little that is different about democracy than the other systems. On the whole those who stand for government come from the same class of people no matter which system we're talking about. Independents dont stand they are placed in seats by the party and the party line usually decides the agenda for the next government. The first allegiance of all house members is not to their constituents but to the party who allowed them to stand in that seat in the first place and then to their sponsors and only lastly to the people. This is why I personally prefer having an unelected Head of State who can act to make sure the government doesn't carry out ridiculously popularist policies which are better for their party and its backers than for the nation as a whole.

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='RandomProddy' date='Feb 14 2006, 12:06 AM']Two out of three ain't bad
[right][snapback]886397[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Where'd he go wrong?

[Resurrexi]

[quote]If Mary hadn't killed all those Protestants[/quote]

They were heretics more than anything else and deserved what they got.

[quote]they might have come back to the Church, or at least wouldn't have come to kill Catholics later on.[/quote]

Just so you know, there were alot of Catholics martyred during the reigns of Their Majesties Henry VIII and Edward VI.

[quote]I'd rather live with a govn't that lets people choose what they believe and gives them freedom[/quote]

religious freedom is evil. Noone can make you convert, but in a Catholic government, heretics and infidels arent allowed to practice their religion publicly.

[quote]am considered man's property[/quote]

women were never considered the property of their husbands.

[quote]and where i have to worry about losing my head or being turned into ashes. [/quote]

Martyrdom is glorious.

[quote]Had Catherine simply gone to a convent that wouldn't have happened. Catherine was not trying to protect her daughter because Henry VIII spelt out clearly what would happen and Catherine refused to budge leading to Parliament declaring her marriage and its fruits illigitimate.[/quote]

at least Her Majesty had some dignity!

[Resurrexi]

[quote]Where'd he go wrong?  [/quote]

parlimentary democracy.

[quote]The number of Protestants killed by Mary I (just over 300) [/quote]

I heard it was in the high 200s but I may be mistaken.

[quote]is comparatively modest compared with the number of people put to death for religious reasons on the continent. [/quote]

very true

[quote]People stayed Protestant because Elizabeth told them too and fined and killed them if they didnt. [/quote]

demmed Bloody Lizzie.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Feb 13 2006, 12:39 PM']But of course, I would support such a system in a Catholic country, a secular country, a country with a chinese folk religion, a buddhist country, a muslim country, a protestant country, et cetera.  [right][snapback]885979[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The fact is that absolute rulers in non-Christian societies tend to be bloody tyrants who rule as gods, unchecked by a higher authority.
(including many pagan Roman and Chinese emperors.)

[Akalyte]

The Papacy. (built on Rock). Everything else is built on sand.

Edited February 14, 2006 by Akalyte

[KnightofChrist]

The Papacy is fine, great even. But God gave earth to man to be ruled by man until Christ's return that includes a Republic Democracy. The United States form of Goverment is the best, next too the Papacy of course. Thomas, if you believe our goverment is horrid, [color=red]get out[/color] and do not come back. The United States will never be ruled buy a King, The People will not stand for it without a great and bloody war. We will not be ruled by a King. A monarchy is unAmerican we vote for our leaders here and vote them out. In a monarchy you become King or Queen simply by birth, the only why to get rid of a wicked King is to kill him or go to war against him, most times thats impossible. With a American President you simply vote him out of office. No King but Christ! No Church but Holy Mother Church lead by the Pope.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 13 2006, 07:06 PM']They were heretics more than anything else and deserved what they got.
[/quote]
Woah there Thomas. How about if you got what you deserved sinner? That is right do not forget your place as a sinner. If we all got what we really deserved...heaven forbid.... So do not pass judgment on others. They might have been heretics, but they could have repented. I am sure glad that you will not sit in judgment of anyone at the appointed time. Your bloodlust for heretics is unchecked. Did you forget that we are called to love all?

How is this for touchy-feely? Deus amor est. And Ubi carits et amor, Deus ibi est!

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 13 2006, 06:10 PM']This is an internet forum. Besides for my word, you have no proof that I am 12.[right][snapback]886347[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Are you not truthful? Is your word not enough?

[Aloysius]

I think StThomasMoooooore is a hundred years old, his age and wisdom is really evidenced by his posts.

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='Feb 14 2006, 02:09 AM']The Papacy is fine, great even.  But God gave earth to man to be ruled by man until Christ's return that includes a  Republic Democracy.  The United States form of Goverment is the best, next too the Papacy of course.  Thomas, if you believe our goverment is horrid, [color=red]get out[/color] and do not come back.  The United States will never be ruled buy a King, The People will not stand for it without a great and bloody war.  We will not be ruled by a King.  A monarchy is unAmerican we vote for our leaders here and vote them out.  In a monarchy you become King or Queen simply by birth, the only why to get rid of a wicked King is to kill him or go to war against him, most times thats impossible.  With a American President you simply vote him out of office.  No King but Christ!  No Church but Holy Mother Church lead by the Pope.
[right][snapback]886520[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Sorry if I offend transatlantic sympathies but your view of a limited monarchy seems to be impaired by the fact that you envision the powers of a constitutional monarch to be the same as a US President's. In the European model of Presidential government the President acts to defend the constitution and ensure the executive, headed up by the Prime Minister, is not ultra vires--in France it works slightly differently but thats the pattern on the whole.

I would advocate a system closer to the French one in fact only get rid of the elections for the head of state and have the King represent the country in world politics. Being there, I should hope, he would learn to put the interests of the state first and constantly be considering what the best deal is for his populace than his party.

Christ's Kindgom is not of this world your words indeed sound shockingly closer to those of the Geneva rebels who repudiated the Lordship of Savoy during the Reformation : Monarch's throughout the years have done the Church good as well as bad, but so have elected leaders. Once again I emphasise that I see little different between the two systems especially given that the same estate always provides the governing class anyway. Indeed, getting rid of bad King could be a hassle--though not if its a constitutional monarchy which outlines his rights and responsibilities clearly--but isnt getting rid of a good President just as easy especially if they can only have two terms of office?

Edited February 14, 2006 by Myles

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Myles' date='Feb 13 2006, 10:05 PM']Sorry if I offend transatlantic sympathies but your view of a limited monarchy seems to be impaired by the fact that you envision the powers of a constitutional monarch to be the same as a US President's. In the European model of Presidential government the President acts to defend the constitution and ensure the executive, headed up by the Prime Minister, is not ultra vires--in France it works slightly differently but thats the pattern on the whole.
[right][snapback]886737[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

My view is not impaired, because I do not have the view that a constitutional monarch is the same of a US President.

[quote name='Myles' date='Feb 13 2006, 10:05 PM']I would advocate a system closer to the French one in fact only get rid of the elections for the head of state and have the King represent the country in world politics. Being there, I should hope, he would learn to put the interests of the state first and constantly be considering what the best deal is for his populace than his party.
[right][snapback]886737[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I would not only advocate but die to protect the Constitutinal system of The United States. I will not support getting "rid" of my God given right to vote, for any head of state. And I'm not going to put my hopes in a man simply because his daddy was King before him. I dont know how it works over there but if "the party" doesnt please the people the party loses. A king that doesnt have to worry about getting voted for doesnt have to give a care about what the populace thinks, his there for life.

[quote name='Myles' date='Feb 13 2006, 10:05 PM']Christ's Kindgom is not of this world your words indeed sound shockingly closer to those of the Geneva rebels who repudiated the Lordship of Savoy during the Reformation  : Monarch's throughout the years have done the Church good as well as bad, but so have elected leaders. Once again I emphasise that I see little different between the two systems especially given that the same estate always provides the governing class anyway. Indeed, getting rid of bad King could be a hassle--though not if its a constitutional monarchy which outlines his rights and responsibilities clearly--but isnt getting rid of a good President just as easy especially if they can only have two terms of office? 
[right][snapback]886737[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


No, my words "No King but Christ" sound "shockingly" close, rather come from the Revolutionary War freedom fighters.: Bad elected leaders can be voted out by the people, bad monarch's can not be voted out by the people. A good US President leaves after two terms so he will not become King, or Kinglike. Kings are not worth the risk to the liberty of the people.

[color=red]Give me Liberty or give me death! [/color] Yet more words from the Revolutionary War freedom fighters.

[Inquisitor Generalis]

I'm a proud Catholic monarchist, myself.

[Didacus]

[COLOR=purple][quote name='Aloysius' date='Feb 13 2006, 01:05 PM'] A true papist doesn't believe the papacy should govern the world.  A true papist would listen to the quotes of the popes that say there should exist another governing body.  No matter what age, whether they were supporting the monarchy of Charlamagne or the democratic ideals of the modern western world, no pope has never attempted nor wanted to attempt to govern the whole world.  He has held the traditional title of king over the whole world, and rightly so, but he does not nor should he ever hold the governing responsibilities of the world.

[/quote]

And that is pretty much my position. I never said that the pope should have the power to make all the laws; but I would give him right to 'veto' the laws such as legalized abortion, or capital punishement, or other.

I don't think he should have much to say on how a country spends its wealth, but he should be able to veto if a country goes to war (sort of like a UN?).

But all these 'details' can be debated.

You are correct, a papist does not claim that the pope rules over a nation like does a king; but there must be an interim goverment between the papacy and the nation(s) in question least all the catholic world would lose its individuality and worse; which as you pointed out was never either the function or the desire of the papacy.






[quote name='Aloysius' date='Feb 13 2006, 01:05 PM']Now, if you are, in some interesting way, supporting a system where all the rules that are applied to the election and reign of a pope are applied to the governing officials... that is very compelling indeed.  I suppose the ruler (shall we call him the 'pope' of the country? hmm... perhaps he could take on some sort of father-like role... but in the secular realm of governing I'd still feel more comfortable if he were called a king) would name a college of cardinals who would have to elect his successor.  The ruler would be required to be celibate so he could completely devote himself to governing the country... and every non-religious aspect of the papacy would be applied to him in relation to that country rather than the Church.

If that's a system you're advocating, I'm very much interested in it.  However, it would be a form of monarchial rule with a bit of an oligarchial college of electors of the monarch.
[right][snapback]886026[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I very much like the papal system of election, and although I would not consider it directly a certain variation of it would be very acceptable to me. The new 'king' or 'queen' would require papal blessing of course.



Again;

I'm a dirty little papist... been this way for years (since my early university days actually), and I'm proud of it!

[avemaria40]

I'm not denying the fact that Henry VIII and Edward VI killed Catholics, I know they did, however, it's wrong to kill anyone for any reason except if someone else's life or saftey is on the line (aka, in a war or prisoners who kill even in prison and are still a danger to society) We are all sinners and have no right to cast that first stone. Again, to quote a movie, "I'd rather live with men than kill them"