French monarchy and Catholic Traditionalism
#51
Christus Imperat Wrote:In that case, the American Revolution was no Revolution at all but simply an act of secession within the British polity.


yeah, this is exactly the impression i get of both Hamilton and John Jay in the Federalist Papers
Reply
#52
(12-27-2010, 02:24 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote: I've modified my earlier post because I realized that it reads as though John Medaille was an early Federalist whereas he is a contemporary writer.  I should have separated those thoughts with a paragraph.

You are correct about Hamilton of course.  Many of the Federalists basically wanted to reproduced the British system in America.  In that case, the American Revolution was no Revolution at all but simply an act of secession within the British polity.

Ah, okay. This reminds me of an alternate history I conceived of where Washington becomes king, Hamilton becomes his lord chancellor, and Washington is built into a Gothic revival paradise rather than the neoclassical form it takes today. This was when I was walking around the National Cathedral district of the capital, imagining what it would be like if the entire city had Gothic buildings.
Reply
#53
(12-27-2010, 02:32 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: Ah, okay. This reminds me of an alternate history I conceived of where Washington becomes king, Hamilton becomes his lord chancellor, and Washington is built into a Gothic revival paradise rather than the neoclassical form it takes today. This was when I was walking around the National Cathedral district of the capital, imagining what it would be like if the entire city had Gothic buildings.
lol, that could of actually happened especially with washingtons famed ego though still think they would of gone neoclassical :/ , reminds me of when i was taking classes inside the bad parts of detroit and the only way i could comprehend the urban decay was thinking i was in 40 years post doomsday apocalyptia that happened in the 60s, only the fear was totally real driving through lol
Reply
#54
The Brits have allot to pay for. Their actions I. Ireland r not forgotten. He great Hunger was a forced starvation of my people and my land. It was policy it wasn't a famine their was a food surplus. Also even prior to that catastrophe and afer that all the way to present ulster still occupied still a piece of ireland molested under brut envious eyes and callus  hands.  the Brits were and are ruthless cruel bastards and for that they will pay
is no over!!!!!
For you weirdo monarbist Mark me words! It's no over!!! Be an anglophile all u want but somethns commin and it's no pretty
sip

Reply
#55
Tiocfaidh ar la!!!!!
Reply
#56
(12-27-2010, 11:13 AM)timoose Wrote: Nathan, the king comes from the OT. The prophets and judges were God's plan then when then Israelites asked for a king. Jesus instituted the Church and put Peter in charge, with all the power to loose and bind, even over kings. This does not negate that God didn't want the Israelites to have a king, in fact it underscores that Jesus is King. NB; the one is small k, while the other is capital K. All power in heaven and on earth was given to Christ, and he chose Peter. Vatican city has nothing really to do with this.
tim

The Judges of Israel were directly called by God, with neither acclamation by the people nor constitutional restraint. The fallen nature of the Israelites made such a government unfeasible for long - did not Our Lord complain that Jerusalem murdered the prophets? Having been chosen from all the Earth, the Israelites ought to been gratified that they had been given such a unique and to our way of thinking, undemocratic system of government. Instead, they demanded the natural manner of rule enjoyed by all other peoples hence God‘s anger. But He nevertheless showed His approval of the monarchical institution both by having Samuel anoint Saul, and by establishing the dynasty of King David, whose last rightful heir according to the flesh, Jesus Christ, continues to rule by right over us all, whether we wish Him or not. It is by Him, and as a reflection of Him, that, as Pope Pius XI‘s hymn to Christ the King puts it, "Kings the Crown and Sceptre hold," as pledge of His supremacy.

Reply
#57
(12-27-2010, 02:24 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(12-27-2010, 02:06 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote:
(12-27-2010, 01:55 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(12-27-2010, 01:45 PM)Scythian Wrote: personally i like the idea of strong constitutional monarchy - like during late 1700s-1800s victorian england - you get consistent leadership under non-political monarch and their political ministers but checked, difference is advantage of monarch being a nonpolitical figure that unifies the country.

I would not take England, especially during that time, to be any sort of thing that is laudable.

It was a genocidal, heretical and entirely worldly.

That seems like a rather one-sided view of Britain.  On the natural level, I think there were many laudable things about Britain.  Also, during the French Revolution, Britain stood for order and sanity in Europe and defeated the maniac Napoleon. 

I am a bit of an Anglophile, I confess.

...it is a true view of Britain. It has anti-Church policies as national policies, especially concerning the monarchy and government. It used to be a Catholic nation, until the monarchy decided it should be otherwise. It has actively sought to destroy the Church. It has also sought to destroy an entire nation.

This isn't just about history. It is about now. The current monarchy stands on the shoulders of murderers and heretics and they continue the traditions of them.

Yes, on a natural level, there laudable things, such as its effectiveness in destroying nations and people and attacking the Church. It was remarkably efficient, but by the grace of God it could not succeed.

I don't think this is an argument of any substance. Certainly Henry VIII was corrupted by Absolutism and good ol fashioned uncontrollable lust but the British Protestant Monarchy remains a Catholic institution  overlaid with a Protestant veneer - just like the Church of England. There is no reason to suppose that any future British monarch could not again be catholic. The current number of Anglicans seeking recocilation with Rome augers well for the future.
Reply
#58
C.S. Lewis once ststed:

Monarchy can easily be debunked, but watch the faces, mark well the debunkers. These are the men whose taproot in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire mere equality they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.

But then again, Lewis was a Belfast Protestant. Aye, the bastard English.
Reply
#59
(12-27-2010, 12:34 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Dunno how many times I need to say this
I'm no an americanist I'm an
anarchist! If ubdont know what that means look it up.
I was raised Republican as in Irish republican which is not republican as I. The GOP of the states.
I u or any one else needs me to clear anything more up just ask

Unfortunately, Republican = Republican = Americanist

And anarchism is always Satanic.  There must necessarily be a political order as is presupposed in scriptures and all governments rule at God's whim.

Moreover, the Papacy is a Monarchy.  I suppose the anarchism might explain the hostility so many anarchist "Catholics" are so anti-Papal.

Reply
#60
Nothing wrong with the American republic in light of the crappy history of Catholic monarchies....experience shows us that the US is superior in almost all facets.  And any facet it might not be superior in currently...there is a fix that will occure, that's the nature of the system, unlike monarchy



the funny thing about monarchists is they all figure they'll be part of some aristocracy or something, as oppsed to what they'll really be....toothless serfs with really bad breath and a weekly bath (maybe)


So it appears the monarchy is pretty much typically demonic...unless were talking about me or HK being the monarch.


The Papacy is an elected position.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)