Oh, I'm sure you prefer the "orthodox vibrancy" of Amchurch. You fit right in.
Posted on 12/12/2004 8:54:32 AM PST by Land of the Irish
Ping
This forked tongued prince needs to read our Declaration of Independence. It is through this document that passage of the Constitution was made possible. Had the Constitutional Convention balked at the inclusion of the ten amendments to that document, there would not have a ratification of it by the states.
It is by and through our Creator - not the state - that American Citizens gained their freedom from state interference into their religious choices, and their ability to assemble for any other purpose.
I guess you would prefer the post-Christian European model, with churches a museum pieces and any speach condemning abortion or homosexual activity is outlawed. Frankly, I prefer the United States, where for the moment at least, the Church has legal freedom of cult, and the Church still has some orthodox vibrancy left to pass on to future generations.
Oh, I'm sure you prefer the "orthodox vibrancy" of Amchurch. You fit right in.
You're right. Apparently American yahooism is the answer.
Even that sweet little Altar boy, carrying the Cross with dignity knows those behind him lack reverence, and are quite out there.
This is the same logic that praises unwed motherhood because at least they didn't have an abortion. The key phrase is "for the moment at least". America has been slavishly adopting the European model one modernist idea at a time. Obviously, Ratzinger believes that it is the state which makes religion possible, when it is God that makes all possible as Christ said to Pilate.
I thought it was sad when women turned away from the Scriptural tenet of covering their heads. Now we have men that have also turned away by covering theirs.
No. I--and, I suspect, LOTI--prefer Christian monarchy, the last significant example of which (the Austro-Hungarian empire) was destroyed thanks in part to the United States in 1918.
Modern Europe is indeed a mess, but that is largely a result of the abolition of monarchies and rejection of traditional political and social values which began with the French Revolution and was virtually completed by World War I, though Rome's apparent surrender to the modern world at Vatican II made things worse.
Traditionalists (or, in my case, their non-Catholic sympathizers) are sometimes accused of claiming that everything was perfect before the Council. Please note that as a monarchist I am obviously aware that the world's problems did not begin in 1962. But Vatican II, with its implication that the Church to a certain extent approved of the great upheavals of the 18th and 20th centuries, did not help, to say the least. And now we see a prominent Cardinal claiming that the American system is preferable to the old European ideal of a Catholic state, a position which Leo XIII condemned.
What on earth are you talking about? I wasn't aware that Crisis had become a hotbed of monarchism, but if so, good for them!
What makes you so sure that Jesus Christ would prefer Americanism to monarchy? If so, why is He called "King of Kings"? Why did the Church for centuries bless kingship with sacramental coronation ceremonies, which have no republican equivalent? Why has the Church canonized so many kings and queens, most recently beatifying the last Emperor of Austria? How many presidents or politicians have been canonized? (I'll answer this one: zero.) Why did the Church until Vatican II clearly understand herself as a monarchy, complete with the papal tiara and coronation ceremony?
If none of these facts convince you, I would ask you to keep this Bible verse in mind: Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. (1 Peter 2:17)
To see why "American yahooism" is the wrong choice, you might also familiarize yourself with the writings of the great Catholic monarchist Charles Coulombe.
Careful; nothing will enrage Catholic Americanists more than criticism of their favorite heresy. I sometimes get the idea that even some traditionalists are embarrassed by John Rao. I think he's great, even though I haven't always fully understood some of his previous articles. This one is quite clear.
Another important thread for our side, even if this great article by John Rao doesn't specifically mention monarchy.
Democratic states, with open trade, do not make war on each other.
You can't say the same about monarchies, can you?
And now we see a prominent Cardinal claiming that the American system is preferable to the old European ideal of a Catholic state, a position which Leo XIII condemned.
Even Catholic states fomented war; in fact, Catholic states were little better than their secular counterparts when it came to aggression.
I'd have no problem with the British model, where the monarch is a mere figurehead. Modern states can no longer entrust power to a single unchecked individual, Catholic or otherwise.
'Splain. There is nothing any more "sacramental" about placing a crown than taking an oath and proclaiming "so help me God."
"America, with Catholic Americans in lock-step, thus marched forward to nurture what St. Cyril of Alexandria called “dypsychia”: a two-spirited existence. On the one hand, it loudly proclaimed outward commitment to many traditional doctrines and “moral values” making it look spiritually healthy. On the other, it allowed “the practical life”, to which it was really devoted, to be defined by whatever the strongest and most successful men considered to be most important, silencing discussion of the gross contradiction by laughing such fruitless intellectual quibbles out of the parlors of a polite, common-sense guided society. It marched this approach into Europe in 1945, ironically linking up with one strain of Modernism that itself encouraged Catholic abandonment to the direction of anti-intellectual “vital energies” and “mystique”. Vitalism and Americanism in tandem then gave us Vatican II which, concerned only with “getting the practical pastoral job done”, has destroyed Catholic doctrine infinitely more effectively than any mere straightforward heretic like Arius could have done."
You are correct, royalcello. Unam gave me a choice between two evils, neither of which I choose as "models".
From "Coronations in Catholic Theology":
Whence, indeed, came the authority of Kingship itself? True it was, that in most countries, the Crown was passed along by hereditary right...But in both sets of cases, the added charism, so to speak, required something more...The anointing of holy oil...took place at the rite of coronation. While the coronation was not itself held generally to confer the Kingship, it nevertheless seemed to be necessary for the royal personage to enjoy the fullness of the graces thereof.
From The Lord of the Rings: A Catholic View:
...it will be necessary to describe a little of the uniquely Catholic world view. In fine, it is a sacramental one. At the heart of all Catholic life is a miracle, a mystery, the Blessed Sacrament. Surrounded traditionally by ritual and awe, it has been the formative aspect of Catholic art, drama, and poetry. The coronation of Kings, swearing of oaths, marriages, celebrations of feast-days, all have a Eucharistic character."
Read both articles; they're worth it.
I would add that the existence of a monarchy, with a religious coronation ceremony marking the beginning of each sovereign's reign, allows the Church to shape the character of the State in a way that is not really possible in republics. By anointing the king or queen, the archbishop confers a type of grace upon the living icon of the nation while making it clear that king is still subordinant to God. Sadly, Europe's surviving continental monarchies have abolished their coronation ceremonies, replacing them with secular "inaugurations" similar to those of presidents. Only the (Anglican) British monarchy, ironically, retains what was originally a thoroughly Catholic ceremony. Did you know that the rite with which Queen Elizabeth II was crowned in 1953 was essentially the same service used for King Edgar in 973, almost a thousand years earlier? I find that incredibly inspiring, moving, and comforting. What can republics offer to compare to that kind of continuity?
From The Rulers of Britain: "Edgar waited to be officially crowned until he was thirty--the age when a man might be ordained a priest. The ceremony emphasized the sacred nature of kingship, and of the monarch as Christ's deputy."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.