God Save The Queen...err...or....wut!

[Crusader_4]

Perhaps...thats true. But i believe a monarch instills national pride. Its a symbol that one can relate to. Whether they be muslim, hindu, pagan, protestant, or Catholic. In Canada we need this. If we did not have one government figure to look up to as constant our multicultural society would topple us. In the states its not needed But if Canada is to advance and maintain as soon as it loses the monarchy it has lost its last real structure that defines the nation. Since Multiculturalism is a policy not an identity. I am not polish...hence why should i cebelbrate being a Pole...yet i have a queen whom i recognize much as the Pole will.

[Ellenita]

Why do you think that Canada would topple as a nation without the queen? The US is probably one of the most multicultural societies in the world isn't it and yet that multiculturalism and the lack of monarchy hasn't toppled the nation. The whole concept of nationality isn't built on having a monarch or arguably a president, since one perception of American national pride is that it is as strong in their flag as in their president....

.......it may be a little unfair of me to ask Elizabeth to pack up her (my!) castles and palaces at her age and emigrate to Canada, but you are more than welcome to have Charles.....in fact feel very free to take him before he succeeds to the throne, though I reserve the right to double check he hasn't packed (my!) crown jewels in his case before he goes!




[b]note[/b]: my taxes go towards the civil list which maintains the royal family and various hangers on...and their castles....and their jewels.....

Edited May 7, 2004 by Ellenita

[Crusader_4]

Well when ppl complain about how much the monarchy costs i laugh because in britain it was something ridicoulous last time i checked like 5- 25 cents per person. USA is different then Canada tho...it assimilate where as Canada tells people they do not nessacirly have to adapt or change their practices. Thus you virtually have mini countries within the nation with very little uniting them in some cases. Multiculturalism is Assimilation in the states not that one is better then the other they each have their own pros and cons.

[Katholish]

I am a changed man after reading St. Thomas Aquinas's [i]On Kingship[/i]. I almost think that it is impossible to form an intelligent position on the matter without hearing from him first. If you disagree with him, then you would need to directly refute his arguments. It is a fairly short work and I recommend it to everyone. I was won over to monarchy in the first 15 pages.

St. Thomas introduces a completely different worldview then what we pick up in today's secular society. I don't really think that we can be blamed for the most part for not understanding right away, we have been imbibing it since birth.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='amarkich' date='May 5 2004, 07:26 PM'] In other words, the government receives the authority to make laws, to govern, to execute, etc, from the people of the country, the governed, not from God. This is untrue and denies the Almightiness of God. It is condemned by the Church, not to mention refuted by the Bible. It claims that there is no ultimate authority, that God does not grant authority to the civil authorities but rather that they have their authority only out of the fact that those whom they govern allow them to rule over them and to make laws and that all authority ultimately is vested in the people. [/quote]
CCC #1901:

"If authority longs to the order established by God, 'the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens.'(GS 74 S 3).

"The divrsity of political regimes is morally acceptable, provided they serve the legitimate good of the communities that adopt them. Regimes whose nature is contrary to the natural law, to the public order, and to the fundamental rights of persons cannot achieve the common good of the nations on which they have been imposed."

[p0lar_bear]

[quote name='Katholish' date='May 7 2004, 05:36 PM'] I am a changed man after reading St. Thomas Aquinas's [i]On Kingship[/i]. I almost think that it is impossible to form an intelligent position on the matter without hearing from him first. If you disagree with him, then you would need to directly refute his arguments. [/quote]
I don't feel the need to refute Aquinas, just quote John Paul II and the Council Fathers... (see my previous post)

[PedroX]

But Polar, please refute Aquinas! Just kidding, but it would be fun to see all those who think liberal republicanism is God's gift to us do so. I know that you don't, and I think your quotes are sufficient to prove that any government that does not violate moral (natural) law is OK. However, the next interesting question is "Since our modern, liberal republic passess laws that violate natural law, is it a just government?"

peace...

[p0lar_bear]

Hmm... Well, one would definitely have to say that those laws are unjust, but I'm not sure you could say that the government is unjust. I mean, what government hasn't passed an unjust law at some point or another? I don't think you could say as soon as a government passes an unjust law it automatically becomes invalid.

Did the French monarchy become invalid when they taxed their people into starvation? Did the British monarchy become invalid when their laws and activities lead to the Irish potato famine?

Besides, because we live in a democracy (of sorts), we, the people, have the power to make changes from within, without discarding everything.

Of course natural law trumps civil law, and civil laws that contradict natural law should not be followed. But that does nto invalidate all the civil laws of the state...the fact that the US government allows abortion doesn't mean we don't have to stop at red lights or that statutory rape laws don't apply anymore (both are based on civil, not natural law).

[Enda]

[quote name='PedroX' date='May 6 2004, 02:00 AM']Have you studied modern British government?  Do you seriously believe that the Queen has that power?  No British monarch has dissolved parliament against its will in several hundred years.[/quote]
No, but all British monarchs still have the power to do so.

[quote]Additionally, please do not confuse the deism of the founding fathers with Christian ideals.[/quote]
The argument was that a stable government must aknowledge a Surpreme Being, which the founding fathers did.

[quote]Republicanism seems to me to go against the natural order.  Its kind of like the congregational model of churches, yes?  What do you think?[/quote]
As long as the Consitiion prohibits violating the natrual law, how could it go against the natrual order?

[Pope Saint Pius V]

Just a few comments...first to say that the Church is a Republican model is not only wrong, but is absurd. The idea of the Church goes likes this. She models here on earth as closely as possible that which is in Heaven. So, theres a Heavenly Liturgy, there's also an Earthly Liturgy which strives to perfect itself to that Heavenly Liturgy. Moreover, in Heaven, it is a monarchy. God reigns supreme as Monarch and all of Heaven are His Subjects. Similarly, on Earth, all men are called to be subject of the Supreme Pontiff, who happens now to be Pope John Paul II. The "goverment" of the Church is monarchical, not in any way republican. Second of all, we must avoid the heretical notion that power is given by the people or that they are able to entrust authority and power. All power comes from above, not below. How shall the ruled give power to the ruler? By the very nature of their being ruled they cannot confer ruling power. St. Thomas is the model held up by the Church for philosophy and theology. The Council of Trent and many popes since then, including John Paul II have said the same. To not read Thomas and then quote John Paul II is foolish. How can you know what the Church means today if you don't look at it in light of her tradition. If John Paul II esteems Thomas the greatest of theologians, then why would we not look to Thomas On Kingship to see what the Holy Father must mean when he says things about government? Furthermore, Aristotle proves that Monarchy is the higest form of governemnt. True, they are all acceptable, but Monarchy is the higest form. The greatest minds in the Western Tradition have always held that, but now, since we've enshrined Milton, Rousseau and Jefferson as "saints" we change our minds.

[Enda]

[quote name='Pope Saint Pius V' date='Jun 12 2004, 01:20 PM']  The "goverment" of the Church is monarchical, not in any way republican.[/quote]
Eh, the Pope really isn't that much of a monarch. I mean not only have the Popes only invoked papal ifallibility [i]twice[/i] in history, there are also tons of other ways to get doctrine decalred that the Pope has little authority in like eccumenical councils, and on top of that all other Popes are subjected tp previous doctrines and eccumenical councils. They can't revoke any doctrine. Using the monoarcial example is a bad idea. It just reinforces the common mistake of thinking the Church is a doctatorship.

I agree that it's not a Republic either, however.

[quote]Second of all, we must avoid the heretical notion that power is given by the people or that they are able to entrust authority and power.  All power comes from above, not below.  How shall the ruled give power to the ruler?  By the very nature of their being ruled they cannot confer ruling power.[/quote]
Well, I have to admit that I haven't read [i]On Kingship[/i], but from the arguements I've read on here a republic is basicly not the best becuase it's not guided by a centeral force. Well, the Consitition [i]is[/i] our central force. As a matter of fact since the governemnt's authority flows from it on could say its better than a monarchy of which it's authority flows from nowhere.

[quote]St. Thomas is the model held up by the Church for philosophy and theology.  The Council of Trent and many popes since then, including John Paul II have said the same.  To not read Thomas and then quote John Paul II is foolish.  How can you know what the Church means today if you don't look at it in light of her tradition.  If John Paul II esteems Thomas the greatest of theologians, then why would we not look to Thomas On Kingship to see what the Holy Father must mean when he says things about government?  Furthermore, Aristotle proves that Monarchy is the higest form of governemnt.  True, they are all acceptable, but Monarchy is the higest form.  The greatest minds in the Western Tradition have always held that, but now, since we've enshrined Milton, Rousseau and Jefferson as "saints" we change our minds.[/quote]
Look, the problem on monarchy is this: its utopian. I mean c'mon, you actually [i]think[/i] any dictator is going to be a perfect model of Christ? Please. It might refelct best the Heavenly Government but such a governemnt can only exsist in Heaven.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' date='May 15 2004, 06:38 PM']
Did the British monarchy become invalid when their laws and activities lead to the Irish potato famine?

[/quote]
No, actually it became invalid when Pope St. Pius V issued a papal bull excommunication Queen Elizabeth. Here it is in its glorious entirety:

Pius Bishop, servant of the servants of God, in lasting memory of the matter.

He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and earth, has committed one holy Catholic and apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one alone upon earth, namely to Peter, the first of the apostles, and to Peter's successor, the pope of Rome, to be by him governed in fullness of power. Him alone He has made ruler over all peoples and kingdoms, to pull up, destroy, scatter, disperse, plant and build, so that he may preserve His faithful people (knit together with the girdle of charity) in the unity of the Spirit and present them safe and spotless to their Saviour.

1. In obedience to which duty, we (who by God's goodness are called to the aforesaid government of the Church) spare no pains and labour with all our might that unity and the Catholic religion (which their Author, for the trial of His children's faith and our correction, has suffered to be afflicted with such great troubles) may be preserved entire. But the number of the ungodly has so much grown in power that there is no place left in the world which they have not tried to corrupt with their most wicked doctrines; and among others, [b]Elizabeth, the pretended queen of England and the servant of crime[/b], has assisted in this, with whom as in a sanctuary the most pernicious of all have found refuge.[b] This very woman, having seized the crown and monstrously usurped the place of supreme head of the Church in all England to gether with the chief authority and jurisdiction belonging to it,[/b] has once again reduced this same kingdom- which had already been restored to the Catholic faith and to good fruits- to a miserable ruin.

2. Prohibiting with a strong hand the use of the true religion, which after its earlier overthrow by Henry VIII (a deserter therefrom) Mary, the lawful queen of famous memory, had with the help of this See restored, she has followed and embraced the errors of the heretics. She has removed the royal Council, composed of the nobility of England, and has filled it with obscure men, being heretics; oppressed the followers of the Catholic faith; instituted false preachers and ministers of impiety; abolished the sacrifice of the mass, prayers, fasts, choice of meats, celibacy, and Catholic ceremonies; and has ordered that books of manifestly heretical content be propounded to the whole realm and that impious rites and institutions after the rule of Calvin, entertained and observed by herself, be also observed by her subjects. She has dared to eject bishops, rectors of churches and other Catholic priests from their churches and benefices, to bestow these and other things ecclesiastical upon heretics, and to determine spiritual causes; has forbidden the prelates, clergy and people to acknowledge the Church of Rome or obey its precepts and canonical sanctions; has forced most of them to come to terms with her wicked laws, to abjure the authority and obedience of the pope of Rome, and to accept her, on oath, as their only lady in matters temporal and spiritual; has imposed penalties and punishments on those who would not agree to this and has exacted then of those who perserved in the unity of the faith and the aforesaid obedience; has thrown the Catholic prelates and parsons into prison where many, worn out by long languishing and sorrow, have miserably ended their lives. All these matter and manifest and notorius among all the nations; they are so well proven by the weighty witness of many men that there remains no place for excuse, defence or evasion.

3. We, seeing impieties and crimes multiplied one upon another the persecution of the faithful and afflictions of religion daily growing more severe under the guidance and by the activity of the said Elizabeth -and recognising that her mind is so fixed and set that she has not only despised the pious prayers and admonitions with which Catholic princes have tried to cure and convert her but has not even permitted the nuncios sent to her in this matter by this See to cross into England, are compelled by necessity to take up against her the weapons of juctice, though we cannot forbear to regret that we should be forced to turn, upon one whose ancestors have so well deserved of the Christian community. [b]Therefore, resting upon the authority of Him whose pleasure it was to place us (though unequal to such a burden) upon this supreme justice-seat, we do out of the fullness of our apostolic power declare the foresaid Elizabeth to be a heretic and favourer of heretics, and her adherents in the matters aforesaid to have incurred the sentence of excommunication and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ.

4. And moreover (we declare) her to be deprived of her pretended title to the aforesaid crown and of all lordship, dignity and privilege whatsoever.

5. And also (declare) the nobles, subjects and people of the said realm and all others who have in any way sworn oaths to her, to be forever absolved from such an oath and from any duty arising from lordshop. fealty and obedience; and we do, by authority of these presents , so absolve them and so deprive the same Elizabeth of her pretended title to the crown and all other the abovesaid matters. We charge and command all and singular the nobles, subjects, peoples and others afore said that they do not dare obey her orders, mandates and laws. Those who shall act to the contrary we include in the like sentence of excommunication.[/b]

6. Because in truth it may prove too difficult to take these presents wheresoever it shall be necessary, we will that copies made under the hand of a notary public and sealed with the seal of a prelate of the Church or of his court shall have such force and trust in and out of judicial proceedings, in all places among the nations, as these presents would themselves have if they were exhibted or shown.

Given at St. Peter's at Rome, on 27 April 1570 of the Incarnation; in the fifth year of our pontificate.

[Budge]

Why would anyone be a monarchist in todays day and age?

Remember the nobles had it good, 99% of everyone else was serfs where there was no place to get a decent hearing.

Are you English?

Do you seriously want New Age Charles running the show?

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Enda' date='Jun 12 2004, 02:06 PM'] Eh, the Pope really isn't that much of a monarch. I mean not only have the Popes only invoked papal ifallibility [i]twice[/i] in history, there are also tons of other ways to get doctrine decalred that the Pope has little authority in like eccumenical councils, and on top of that all other Popes are subjected tp previous doctrines and eccumenical councils. They can't revoke any doctrine. Using the monoarcial example is a bad idea. It just reinforces the common mistake of thinking the Church is a doctatorship.




[/quote]
My friend, you need to do some reading. The is absolutely a monarch. He cannot be removed, no matter how many people, cardinals etc. vote on it. He has supreme jurisdictional authority. It is not an unlimited power or authority to be sure, but niether is the monarchy espoused by Aquinas in that masterpiece of political philosophy [i]On Kingship[/i]. The Holy Father is bound by what the Church has always taught etc. He cannot revoke doctrine nor change thier meaning. BUT, nothing is declared (doctrinally) apart from the authority of the Holy Father. He has supreme veto power on anything purposed by a council. And no council is convened without his permission. Ergo, there is nothing wrong with calling the Papacy a monarchical institution.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' date='May 15 2004, 09:33 AM'] I don't feel the need to refute Aquinas, just quote John Paul II and the Council Fathers... (see my previous post) [/quote]
That's a copout. Your post only shows what is accepted or vaguely lays down some first principles, but in no way refutes Aquinas, nor does it even attempt to describe what the best form of government is.