«12. . .1,1761,1771,1781,1791,1801,1811,182. . .2,5142,515»
Forgive me for my long absence since last night, I had a celebration after my welcoming into Holy Church and I went to bed late, only to get up early for school. Anyway, allow me to respond with a Biblical defense of the Monarchy which one of my friends has so graciously lent me the tools to do so.
Monarchy is spoken highly of in scripture.
Genesis 14:18-20
But Melchisedech the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God, Blessed him, and said: Blessed be Abram by the most high God, who created heaven and earth. And blessed be the most high God, by whose protection the enemies are in thy hands. And he gave him the tithes of all.
God also lays down a blueprint for good kings.
Deuteronomy 17:14-20
When thou art come into the land, which the Lord thy God will give thee, and possessest it, and shalt say: I will set a king over me, as all nations have that are round about: Thou shalt set him whom the Lord thy God shall choose out of the number of thy brethren. Thou mayst not make a man of another nation king, that is not thy brother.
And when he is made king, he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor lead back the people into Egypt, being lifted up with the number of his horsemen, especially since the Lord hath commanded you to return no more the same way. He shall not have many wives, that may allure his mind, nor immense sums of silver and gold. But after he is raised to the throne of his kingdom, he shall copy out to himself the Deuteronomy of this law in a volume, taking the copy of the priests of the Levitical tribe, And he shall have it with him, and shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, and keep his words and ceremonies, that are commanded in the law; And that his heart be not lifted up with pride over his brethren, nor decline to the right or to the left, that he and his sons may reign a long time over Israel.
Even the New Testament portrays monarchy in a positive light.
1 Timothy 2:1-2
I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men: For kings, and for all that are in high station: that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all piety and chastity. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1 Peter 2:13-17
Be ye subject therefore to every human creature for God’ s sake: whether it be to the king as excelling; Or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of the good:For so is the will of God, that by doing well you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not as making liberty a cloak for malice, but as the servants of God. Honour all men.
Father Joseph Gleason explains some of these verses rather well in his article here.
One of the most often arguments used against Christian monarchy is that the period of the Judges was superior, since those who rose up were chosen directly by God. I will lift from Fr. Gleason’s article:
Four times, the book of Judges mentions there being “no king in Israel”.
And in every case, it is mentioned in a negative context:
Judges 17 / Idolatry / Quote: “there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes”
Judges 18 / Genocide / Quote: “there was no king in Israel”
Judges 19 / Rape & Murder / Quote: “there was no king in Israel”
Judges 21 / Kidnapping & Forced Marriage / Quote: “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”
It is never suggested that the lack of a king was a good thing. Israel’s lack of monarchy is never mentioned when Gideon smashes idols, or when the people of Israel turn towards God.
Rather, Israel’s lack of monarchy is always mentioned in connection with blatant public sins which could have been restrained by the presence of a godly king.
When there are godly kings, righteousness reigns.
When there are godless kings, wickedness abounds.
The solution is to pray for God to replace a wicked king with a godly king,
not to replace the monarchy with some other form of government.
The second argument is that God was not pleased when the Jews asked God for a king. It is not because God was displeased with monarchy, it is that the Jews asked outside of the proper timing and for reasons which were not right. They wanted a king which acted “like our enemies” in order to protect them. The establishment of a kingdom was the plan from the beginning. David was he who was meant to be king.
Fr. Gleason’s wisdom is shown yet again in his other article, The Long-Awaited King. He opens with the verses to defend the assertion that monarchy was the plan from the beginning.
Genesis 17:6
And I will make thee increase, exceedingly, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
Genesis 35:11
And said to him: I am God Almighty, increase thou and be multiplied. Nations and peoples of nations shall be from thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins.
Genesis 49:10
The sceptre shall not be taken away from Juda, nor a ruler from his thigh, till he come that is to be sent, and he shall be the expectation of nations.
The final explicitly Biblical defense is that democracy or republicanism is not supported in scripture. The abolition of monarchy is never suggested, and sin or evil is never said to be caused by occupying the position of monarch. The individual king is held responsible, but the institution is never shown negatively.
Awkwardly enough, the only time democracy is ever used in scripture, the people choose Barrabus over Jesus, so I suppose you have that going for you.
Jesus and the Apostles lived under the Roman Empire, in an area which spoke Greek and was aware of Greek culture and democracy for 500 years. Not even a hint of democratic sentiment is found, and there is no justification found for the violent revolutions such as the Russian and French, with all their death, destruction, and the introduction of mass immorality. Only anarchy and tyrrany were brought about by the Enlightenment, not order and logic as the “philosophers” sold it.
Catholic teaching, specifically that of St. Thomas Aquinas (I suppose he's a Nazi now) building upon the works of Plato and Aristotle places monarchy as the greatest possible political system. Even aristocracy is ranked by the Angelic Doctor above democracy. He details how the system may be carried out well in his work De Regno.
The revolutionary spirit which brought about democracy and immorality has brought so much harm to the Church, as well as promoting secularism, where each man is his own god. Is this not the spirit of anti-Christ itself? Revolutionary values were brought about with tremendous violence, death, and destruction. Democracy and republics have ushered us into an era of indifferentism, collapse, corruption, and put us under the boot of a world war and a period of widespread communism, all of which killed hundreds of millions of innocent bodies and souls.
Democracy allows for the human and diabolical nature to become the main focus. Fallacies and appeals to emotions resound in republics, and those who can most easily flatter and manipulate rise to the top. A king may be tyrannical, but he may be removed either by the prayers of the people or more physically. Prayer is recommended in scripture, and the Angelic Doctor makes clears arguments for tyrannicide.
The power most parliaments wield is far greater than any king ever had. Mass spying and regulation is the conclusion of this fight for freedom. A traditional ordained by God was brought crashing down in a few short centuries, with the fruits of their rebellion being eaten to this day. The sour taste of widespread degeneracy, atheism, and totalitarianism is the only result of abandoning Godly hierarchy.
It is far easier to remove a single bad ruler than to fully remove an immoral system.
Under monarchy, Christianity flourished. Countless Churches were built, honorable men bred, and Christ placed as the head of Kingdom and Home. The only logical system under the Church is lordship from the top-down. Christ is the King of All, the King ruler over the nation, and the father the Lord of his house and family. Order begets true freedom, which is that of righteousness. True freedom is the freedom to do good, and the ability to follow God’s will without human and diabolical influence. The probability of one man being good far surpasses that of millions being righteous.Under good rulers, Europe was brought up to be the world’s shining jewel. Under monarchy, the most beautiful works of art and music were created, from the works of Palestrina and Des Prez, to Michaelangelo and Bernini. With the democratization of art, quality and beauty suffered tremendously as well since all things, including morality, changed from objective to subjective.
Jesus Christ is the King of Kings, God is the Father Almighty, not our Prime Minister and government for two terms. A restoration of the Faith will bring about Godly governance, which will only come with the restoration of the old social order.
Darn that was long, I'm sorry guys
Culture of Life and The united empire of new missouri
The Bible was written in a time when monarchy was not only the norm but there was no real such thing as democracy. And the "praising" of monarchy is actually a case-by-case thing. God is no fan of the Israelites' monarchy. He's fine with good kings, but the bad ones, not so much.
...Meanwhile
http://www.lifenews.com/2017/04/24/democrat-party-chair-no-place-for-pro-life-democrats-get-in-line-with-abortion-of-get-out/
Culture of Life and The republic of christiandom
Sighs....
Culture of Life, New Dolgaria, Havilland, Phydios, and 1 otherStellonia
Thanks for quietly siding with me on the monarchy/democracy debate, BTW.
Heard about that. I cannot understand the democrats. They seem to WANT to destroy themselves (I mean, come on, they nominated a candidate so corrupt she could lose to Donald Trump. DONALD TRUMP!!!) Do they want to alienate every section of the party until the party is completely broken? There are three parts of the party, the Progressives (younger members, United Massachusetts, and Bernie, who care about serving the people, even if they don't do it correctly, the most liberal part of the party), the Liberals, (older members of the party, including Tom Perez, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schemer, not the most liberal part, but those who serve the elite, their donors) and the Moderates (Southern Democrats, Joe Manchin, the center-right who are there for tradition, the centrists, and the center-left, those who would've been called normal democrats back in the 1970s, these are leaving the party like crazy, because a lot of them are noticing the Dems going further and further left. Good they aren't socialists yet, but with the Progressives in power...)The Moderates have a large amount of pro-lifers, so this is hurting the dems. These ones will become independents, but with the Progressives trying to make their own party, that will hurt. This is why the Dems won't be as successful as you might expect over the next four decades, even with the near-socialism of millennial alike most of the people on NS.
Yeah, sorry about that being so long.
Are you sure about that? The Greeks had had democracy and the Romans had had the republic for hundreds of years since Our Blessed Lord's birth. Not only that, but Palestine had been under the control of both Greeks and Romans in the past and their ideas would have most certainly spread there. If Democracy or The Republic is so morally superior, then Our Blessed Lord Jesus would most certainly have said so. Why did He or His apostles never speak out in support of it is so morally righteous? His followers spoke greek if not him himself, so he would have known of the city states and democracy quite well. I think it is clear that Our Blessed Lord and his father, from the multiple Bible quotations I cited above, from both the Old and New Testaments, from St. Thomas Aquinas himself, the VAST number of Saint Kings (Edward the Confessor, Stephen of Hungary, Jadwiga of Poland, Blessed Karl I, Louis IX, Canute IV, Wenceslaus of Bohemia, Sigismund of Burgundy, Etcetera) compared to the absence of any Saint Presidents or PMs, The RAMPANT agnosticism, cultural Christianity, and atheism awash in democracies, the COMPLETE sexual immorality in republics (compared to Catholic Monarchies), I think it is clear which our Blessed Lord Jesus would prefer.
No. In fact, it only strengthens my resolve to stay in the party to fight back and prevent it from sinking to its lowest denominator. The truth is that the Democrats are going to have to realize at some point that they can't abandon the 21 Million pro-life Democrats without a fight. If pro-lifers want to get anything done, they need Democratic allies. Similarly, if Democrats want to get anything done, they need pro-life allies. I've called my Democratic reps several times about my stance on abortion- they haven't gotten the message yet. It's getting frustrating, but that doesn't mean I should abandon the effort and vote for the Republicans, who are more pro-death than the Democrats from my perspective. Instead it means I'm going to try to organize. It means we have to get pro-life Democrats on every primary ballot in this great country.
New Dolgaria, Havilland, Stellonia, and The republic of christiandom
#1. First of all, Rome does not count as a republic, because the consuls were rarely actually in charge, and it wasn't actually all that democratic. And Rome was an Empire prior to the birth of Christ.
#2. Greece was never introduced to judeo-christianity, so of course they weren't exactly chaste. But that's because they didn't understand that there was something wrong with it. They had never been introduced to good moral values. They were ignorant, but not necessarily culpably ignorant.
#3. In the Old Testament, which is mainly what you referenced, they would not have known the Greeks, so monarchy was the norm. And again, God was advocating for good kings, not necessarily kings.
#4. Jesus and the Apostles were not political, and therefore would not have advocated for democracy or monarchy. They care about people's souls, so they naturally didn't care for politics.
#5. The number of good Catholic Monarchs, while notable, definitely does not overshadow the number of corrupt ones, bad Catholics, and those who forced people to convert (ahem... Charlemagne)
#6. You neglect to mention non-Catholic monarchs, which are unsurprisingly more corrupt.
#7. Despite that, Church and State, should be separate. This is another reason why Jesus was not political, and my biggest gripe that Pope Francis (still love the guy, God bless him)
#8. You never seem to want to reply to me directly, even though I take you full on. I address your point that "democracies lead to sexual immorality" by saying that monarchy is no different. You respond by saying "democracies lead to sexual immorality" again. We understand your stance. What is the rest of your reasoning?
#9. Speaking of sexual immorality, that is caused by a loss of Christian values. I know that you're about to say that that is caused by democracy, but you are simply seeing two unrelated facts "monarchies don't really exist anymore", and "the world is increasingly atheist", and putting them together. This is a "post hoc" fallacy, or "after the fact" in Latin. I will repeat myself. Yes, the world was extremely Christian back in the beginning of the second millennium. Now, of course, back them, "the world" meant Europe, and you aren't accounting for Asia, Africa, and the Americas, which were not Christian. You will probably say that the world was more Christian back then even with that, and you are probably right. But that is mainly through Church corruption, which led to the Protestant Reformation, and radical changes in Christianity leads to atheism, not democracy.
#10. (Last one, don't worry) If you still want to say "democracy causes atheism and sexual immorality", do you care to explain how? Because there were a lot of promiscuous monarchs.
P.S. Sorry for the long, angry messages (well, at least the long part)
P.P.S We have the most interesting debates here in Right to Life though.
You know what? I respect that a lot. I like your getting involved with the government too, whether you're trying to get something good or not. You're probably right about the pro-lifers needing help from the democrats. But you live in the wrong state to get pro-life dems. You gotta get down to the South (I consider Bob Casey Jr. a "PLINO"). But the GOP is definitely not more pro-death. 700,000 abortions a year=700,000 women who have aborted babies=700,000 deaths+a lot more women with breast cancer (I don't know the exact number). But it's very significant. Contraception, too. And don't go after the GOP for the death penalty please. (sorry, do I sound really angry? I'm not) The Dems are split on the death penalty, but the ones who are elected usually for it. And I don't consider the death penalty anti-life necessarily. For awful, painful, murders, such as rape-murders, I think I do support the death penalty. Otherwise, IDK. I definitely only support it with undeniable evidence. But back to the main point, in the case of the death penalty is killing someone who has previously taken a life or put many lives at risk. From the point of view of those sentencing it, they think the risk of someone getting out and killing someone again is great enough that they are saving more INNOCENT lives (again, that's just what I think they believe, I have mixed feelings on the death penalty).
If you can get pro-life dems in Massachusetts (not being my usual snarky self right now, if it sounds that way), I will do what I can to get you a congressional medal of honor.
My dad, a politician himself (has worked for prominent congresspeople in the past), a staunch conservative: Perez is right on that. Of course, working for a republican in Congress, he wants a divided Democrat Party. Now you're probably calling me a radical, too, but I'm not. I am centrist or center-right, way too moderate to be a republican politician, except on social issues, in which case I am the top 1% (LOL Bernie) in most Conservative. On economic issues, while I would tell you that the free market is a good thing, if you give me an issue, I might regulate. And, while I am not as liberal as the Democrats on environmental issues, I do think that the GOP is making a mistake in basically believing that climate change is a myth. It's a gradual thing, but it is happening.
P.S. One of these days I might shut up.
Havilland and The morian empire
According to Merriam-Webster, the definition for a republic can be: "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law." and the Roman Republic function as such. "Roman government was headed by two consuls, elected annually by the citizens and advised by a senate composed of appointed magistrates." Rome was a republic, whether you like it or not. To apply to both of these points then, if Greece and the Roman Republic don't count towards my argument because they weren't Christian, then why do Great Britain and the Roman Empire count towards yours when they weren't even Roman Catholic when I explicitly said earlier that I am a Catholic Monarchist?
Just because the Old Testament is dated doesn't mean it isn't worth anything anymore. Not to mention, It is backed up in the New Testament too, from two particular verses I cited that you've been ignoring. 1st Peter 13-17 is particularly interesting: "Be ye subject therefore to every human creature for God’ s sake: whether it be to the king as excelling; Or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of the good: For so is the will of God, that by doing well you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not as making liberty a cloak for malice, but as the servants of God. Honour all men." You keep saying that he was advocating for good kings and not a monarchy, but not only do you seem to be saying that without proof, but right in the Book of 1st Peter it seems to be disproving that claim.
See above Bible Verse.
I wouldn't necessarily argue that forced conversion is a negative thing when performed under the True Religion, especially when done to disgustingly evil pagans and violent Muslims like by Charlemagne. In Spain it served to unite the nation under Holy Mother Church and eradicate the possibility of religious civil war that engulfed countries like the Kingdom of France until the Edict of Nantes was revoked by Louis XIV (One of the greatest kings of all time). It also should be noted that only one country managed to truly have Protestant-Catholic tolerance during the Reformation, which was Poland, but the populace eventually willingly converted back to the Catholic Church anyway, but I digress. For the sake of argument, I'll pretend like I completely agree that forced conversion is naughty. Anyways, most of the unfaithful Catholics were bad Kings. Good Catholics were excellent Kings. This is why I'm a Catholic Monarchist. If a monarchy is led by a pious and faithful Roman Catholic then why should we have anything to fear? Perhaps if there was a council of Bishops that would choose the most pious child from a Monarch's children then we'd have a more stable and faithful Monarchy. However, that's a completely different discussion from what we're doing now.
I make no defense for them, as I am not a Protestant Monarchist or an Islamic Monarchist. I'm a Catholic Monarchist. I'm not here to defend Shogun Iemitsu the Buddhist homosexual or King Henry VII, the Anglican 5 time divorcee.
Why? Church and State being separate is part of what led to agnosticism and immorality becoming mainstream in Western Culture. Not to mention it goes against scripture and the writings of many many Saints and Church Fathers Such as the Legendary St. Thomas Aquinas.
I will concede that I do believe that the Reformation helped lead to atheism, but the introduction of secularism was the thing that really set it in motion. The ability for people to choose to be lazy, immoral, impious beings is very appealing the majority, and I'd argue that's the reason why the modern secular world has become so unfaithful, whereas nations which have kept a state religion, like nations in the middle east, have remained so strong in their faith. (not saying I like islam at all- I don't, I'm just using the middle east as an example.) This is a trend throughout the modern world. Secular Nations have less religious people in them and more immorality.
I already explained how above, and I will concede it has more to do with secularism overall than it does with democracy, but at this point I'd say the two are inseperable. Anyway, I will agree there were promiscuous monarchs, but this has to do with the fact that many of them were not upright Catholics. Picking the most upright Catholic from the Monarch's children or relatives could solve this problem. I know it isn't the strongest argument, but it's always how I've imagined my ideal Catholic monarchy.
What a wonderful example of Catholic piety.
I'll simply say that it is my belief that most any political system/regime works when done by godly and holy persons, monarchy or otherwise. My point in this post is about the forced conversion statement you made. I'm quoting from Dr. Lawrence Feingold, from one of his articles.
"If an adult is forcibly baptized against his will, such a Baptism is invalid (non-existent) because the intention is clearly lacking. The requirement that a person intend to receive the sacrament is only applicable for those who are capable of making such consent, which presupposes the use of reason.
The Church has always condemned the forcible Baptism of the children of unbelievers against the will of their parents, just as it condemns the forcible Baptism of adults. St. Thomas poses the question of whether this could be licit, and argued very strongly against such a position on the grounds that the parents have both the duty and the right by natural law to instruct their children according to their conscience, even if it is erring:
'The children of unbelievers either have the use of reason or they have not. If they have, then they already begin to control their own actions, in things that are of Divine or natural law. And therefore of their own accord, and against the will of their parents, they can receive Baptism, just as they can contract marriage. Consequently such can lawfully be advised and persuaded to be baptized. If, however, they have not yet the use of free-will, according to the natural law they are under the care of their parents as long as they cannot look after themselves. For which reason we say that even the children of the ancients “were saved through the faith of their parents.” Wherefore it would be contrary to natural justice if such children were baptized against their parents’ will; just as it would be if one having the use of reason were baptized against his will. Moreover under the circumstances it would be dangerous to baptize the children of unbelievers; for they would be liable to lapse into unbelief, by reason of their natural affection for their parents. Therefore it is not the custom of the Church to baptize the children of unbelievers against their parents’ will.'
Havilland, Stellonia, and The morian empire
I wasn't necessarily arguing for it from a religious perspective, but from a political one. You are right of course, Holy Church condemns forced conversion, but it did generate stability in many of the countries in which it was implemented. If I had the power to issue forced conversions myself, I wouldn't do it, but I don't think it was always inherently bad for the stability for the nation as a whole. As to whether it was ethical and actually saved souls, well, I think we all know the answer to that.
I just wanted to pick on this point that Church and State being separate causes the secularisation of society is not true. For almost 80 years the Irish State and Irish Church were pretty much inseparable, they both worked together to achieve their own goals. This is what led to the misuse of power committed by the Church for ages and destroyed the trust the clergy had with the laity. Church and State must be kept separate, because its too easy for the Church to be used by the State in a way which causes people to abandon the faith because people see such things and simply think the Church is a tool of the State. In Ireland's case however it was the other way about with Church using the power of the State and sometimes abusing it.
New Dolgaria, Havilland, United massachusetts, and Theokratiss
When they aren't separate, pepole that desire power (not relationship with God) may try to become priests. That happened in medieval times and history loves to repeat itself.
Lechia, Eire, you nailed it on the Church and State.
Roman Catholic Federation, Catholic monarchy doesn't make it much better. As Eire said, if Church and State aren't separate, one uses the other. In 1st Peter, "the King" is probably God (I'll read the verse), "the governors" are people in
Power.
Also, as I said earlier, Rome was a sham Republic, because it was ruled by unelected dictators in reality, though not in theory.
And if you choose the best Catholic of the King's relatives, they could still become corrupt, and Who would say who the best Catholic is?
Once again, the rise of democracy did not cause immorality and atheism! It was Church corruption from a)abusing the state from being too close, or b)being abused by the state from being too close. And it was also "Catholic" monarchs shoving the Church down people's throats! That's a great way to get people to agree with you! Yup. And that is what religious monarchy leads to. You cannot have the executive and legislative power forever. Too much power. And there would need to be a constitutional court, appointed by the people. But no one's ruling for life, so it's not really a monarchy. The more vanilla, the more corrupt (in monarchy, for the most part)
Last point: Charlemagne
New Dolgaria, Havilland, Phydios, The Catholic State of Eire, and 1 otherSlavic lechia
Last point: Charlemagne [/quote] Forget this part.
«12. . .1,1761,1771,1781,1791,1801,1811,182. . .2,5142,515»
Advertisement
