REQUIEM MASS FOR THE PONTIFICAL SOLDIERS WHO DIED IN THE DEFENSE OF ROME

The Foundation for Catholic Reform ^ | September 20, 2003 | Fr. Ignacio Barreiro

[royalcello]

Traditionally, the powers of Christian monarchs were limited in practice by the aristocracy, the Church, and common law. Royal absolutism was a byproduct of the Protestant "Reformation," and even then, it was nothing like the truly evil totalitarianism of the 20th century. And democracy can also lead to tyranny, as the Germans found out. The democratic countries of Europe and North America are experiencing a much milder but still worrying version of tyranny today, with restrictions on politically incorrect speech, etc..

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I'm not sure that our goals are necessarily mutually exclusive. Was not the Holy Roman Empire an attempt at such a commonwealth?

Well, not really. The Empire of Charlemagne, the East Roman Empire (falsely styled Byzantine), and the Austro-Hungarian Empire are better examples.

The Holy Roman Empire was "The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation". No different in principle than the "Roman Empire of the Serbs and Greeks" that Serbia made in the 1300's. In other words, a petty nationalism.

I tend to doubt that a permanent "worldwide peace" is possible, and would take the past "evils" over the present ones any day.

Peace is possible if rulers will conform themselves to Christ. Peace among Christians, which is what I am really after, is eminently possible.

[MWS]

It would be nice to have an English-language monarchist presence. It is unfortunate that the English speaking world isn't exactly the bastion for such thought. The English monarchy itself seems to be a joke at times, and certainly does not seem like something to which a Roman Catholic monarchist can give much support.

I've heard of the Monarchist League, which I think is a very nice idea. I've considered becoming involved with it, although it is something about which I am still learning.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The only problem with a monarchy is your are placing you bets on one person being a just ruler instead of the pluraity being just in their choosing of leaders. The former can lead to tyranny, the latter to anarchy. Pick your poision and take your chances.

A Christian Monarchy should be limited by a Senate, an Assmebly, a Judiciary, and a Church. The Monarch would not reign absolutely or by divine right, but so long as he conforms the course of the State to Justice and Faith. The Constantinopolitan model of the East Roman Empire is far superior in many regards to those given by most western or eastern Monarchies.

[MWS]

A Christian Monarchy should be limited by a Senate, an Assmebly, a Judiciary, and a Church. The Monarch would not reign absolutely or by divine right, but so long as he conforms the course of the State to Justice and Faith. The Constantinopolitan model of the East Roman Empire is far superior in many regards to those given by most western or eastern Monarchies.

I've thought along those lines in the past, but my main concern is that limiting the monarch in such ways often leads to completely declawing the monarch, making him a symbolic head. It would seem that such a system leads to rule by popularly elected representatives, which in turn leads back to materialistic secularism and rule by politics.

I'm of the mind that the power of monarchs is better limited by its hereditary nature. Hereditary leaders, although raised to be monarchs, tend towards ineffectualism and concern with enjoying their wealth and status. They tend to depend upon advisors to help make many of the important decisions and act as a sort of "official stamp", keeping the advisors in check.

Of course, then again, I could be completely off base here.

[royalcello]

It has been quite some time now since the worst of the Windsor scandals, and I am firmly of the opinion that, especially in the absence of any preferable alternative, the British monarchy must be supported in spite of the flaws of some of its representatives. I watched the funeral of HM the Queen Mother on TV, and attended the Golden Jubilee celebrations in London, and I can tell you that in spite of everything that has happened, the British monarchy is still far from being a "joke." Surely the intense hatred the British Left has for the royal family suggests that the Windsors must be doing something right. And as Catholic monarchist Charles Coulombe pointed out, "If immorality on the part of its leaders were a reason for abolition, there would be no institutions: political, business, religious, or any other sort; remaining on Earth---and that includes even families."

[redgolum]

Royal absolutism existed before the Reformation. Take a look at the history surrounding the Crusades for example. Many of the Frankish nobles and "kings" did as they pleased, especially when they got to the Byzantine empire. One of the more basic aspects of the human conditions is that power can and will corrupt. The dangers of monarchies is that the number of people to corrupt is smaller, but the advantage is that if the monarch is just, they can help pull the nation back on the right path. A true republic can be just as corrupt, but the checks and balances can serve as a way to limit the amount of power any one group can get.
What is the best form of government? Hard to say. All have the possibility of abuse. A constitional monarchy can be a good form of government, so can a republic.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Look at how the Christian Roman Empire was governed. The Emperor was checked by the Senate, the Judiciary, and the Church in carrying out his will absolutely. The Church felt no compunction at all in opposing him and having him tossed out if he became a heretic or gross public sinner.

The Monarch needs to be more than a hereditary administrator, but less than an only lawgiver.

[royalcello]

A constitutional monarchy can be a good form of government, so can a republic.

I don't really disagree, although I don't think "constitutional" has to mean that that the monarch has no power at all as is currently the case in the surviving European monarchies (except for Liechtenstein).

I (obviously) have a strong emotional preference for the trappings, customs, and philosophy of monarchy. However, I also recognize that different forms of government can be suitable for different countries depending on their heritages and traditions, which is why I do not advocate monarchy for the United States or Switzerland.

[redgolum]

True, but that is a fine line to walk. Even in the Christain Roman Empire, there were leaders who attempted to become absoulte. Give a man control of army, and he will forget to ask others for council.

[redgolum]

By the way, what battle was fought in 1870? That would be about the time that Prussia began to fight, but I haven't studied that time in enough detail to remember the specifics.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The 1870 Battle was Masonic Italy against the Papal States. It was started by the withdrawal of French troops from Rome due to Napoloen III's provocative moves towards Prrussia concerning Luxemburg, countered by the invasion of Bismarck.

[redgolum]

Any good links for information? I have tried to find a few on the net on this issue.

[Guelph4ever]

From a Conservative Catholic Monarchist:

I think you should read the book 'Politics Drawn from Holy Scripture' by Bishop Jacques Bossuet, in which he outlines the difference between an absolute monarch and an arbitrary monarch (not the same thing!)

During the High Middle Ages (really the glory days of Christianity) the monarch was strong, holding a very exalted position, in name-an absolute ruler. Yet, the Church was above him, and most government was done on the local level. Power was very de-centralized. Traditional Catholic monarchists have always supported this, be it the autonomy and strong king of the Spanish Carlistos or the "Divine Right" Stuarts with home rule for Scotland and Ireland desired by the Jacobites.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

During the High Middle Ages (really the glory days of Christianity)

I rather think the age of Justinian and his successors were the glory days of Christianity. The Middle Ages saw the final end of the Imperial Roman ideal.

[Guelph4ever]

I personally would not call Imperial Rome the ideal as the secular rulers still had too much power, whereas during the High Middle Ages, particularly in the time of Innocent III, the Church was recognized by everyone as having the last word.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I personally would not call Imperial Rome the ideal as the secular rulers still had too much power, whereas during the High Middle Ages, particularly in the time of Innocent III, the Church was recognized by everyone as having the last word.

Which is why the Crusaders went to sack Constantinople New Rome against his orders?

Wasn't the period AD 400-650 a lot better for Christians in Africa, Egypt, Syria, Persia, Spain, etc. than post Islam in the Middle Ages? Or does the only part of Christendom that counts consist fo France, Italy, and Germany?

Why do you insist on seeing the Most Christian Emperors as all-powerful tyrants and dictators? Rome was the source of law, order, and freedom, not the German barbarians. Rome had a system of free cities and provincial rule in a united land at peace long before the medieval royals figured out how to mimic this system and curb the depredations of their nobles. Rome didn't suffer from peasant revolts and constant internicene warfare (Hundred Years War, etc.).

Have you ever actually read any Christian Roman History?

You might find some of what is available here to be of great interest and fascination. It's a real labor of love.

General index - http://www.friesian.com/philhist.htm

Roman History - http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm

German History - http://www.friesian.com/germania.htm

French History - http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm

Russian history - http://www.friesian.com/russia.htm

[Hermann the Cherusker]

One interesting thing from studying Christian Roman history was my realization that the Republic of Venice and the Papal States were the last surviving fragments of the Empire of Romania (Roman-Land), as it was termed in Christian times. In them, the Imperial Roman past survived until just 130-200 years ago. The name lives on in the country of Romania and the Italian Province of Emilia-Romagna, as well as in the Rhaeto-Romanisch peoples of the Alps.

[Guelph4ever]

Alright, if you're going to get combative I really don't have time for another round tonight...

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Alright, if you're going to get combative I really don't have time for another round tonight...

Combative?