Skip to comments.Karl von Habsburg, Emperor and King
Posted on 08/03/2004 7:56:37 PM PDT by B-Chan
After an extensive investigation into the life and the death of Emperor Karl of Austria, the Church now confirms definitively: Emperor Karl is a heroic example of Christian virtues. Acquired during a life lived responsibly as a human being, statesman, husband and father, and developed even up until his death in exile, his virtues are shining examples of his personal journey towards Christ. His confidence, despite the uncertainty of his times, was motivated by the words of the Holy Gospels: Thy Will be done. Even in the darkest, loneliest, and hardest hours of his life, this was his clear aim. On his deathbed Emperor Karl said: I have to suffer so much so that my peoples can again come together.
Today, decades later, his peoples have found new forms of communal identity. May they recognize in the newly beatified Emperor, who was devoted to all of them, a heavenly intercessor and an example illuminating the way into the future, a future which is responsible before God, and responsible for the respect and dignity of every human being.
[Note: In 1972, upon the fiftieth anniversary of the death of His Imperial Majesty, the late Emperors body was disinterred and examined by an ecclesial and family commission. It was found to be incorrupt.]
At the Parish of St. Mary the Virgin in Arlington, Texas today a mass was said for the Cause of the late servant of God His Imperial Majesty Emperor Karl von Habsburg, Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary. The parish will be sending a delegation to the Beatification of His Imperial Majesty in Rome in October and will meet with His Imperial Highness the Archduke Otto von Habsburg, Member of the Parliament of Europe and son of the late Emperor. Please pray for the soul of the Emperor, his family, and for his intercession for Europe and the Western World in this time of need.
So a former enemy of the USA is now a Saint to be in the Catholic Church? Will that not make an American Catholic a traitor to living veterans of WW1? Or a bad Catholic if a Catholic American veteran of WW1 who refuses to recognize this once enemy of America?
It's hard to imagine that anyone in power can be saintly enough, but then I know nothing about this man or his beliefs -- or for that matter what the Catholic Church uses to beatify.
He said it was a very sad story and they did not live happily ever after but instead he died in exile at a very young age. He said that they loved their people very much and governed justly but Austria was a country that was ravaged by a war they did not win. I remember that they had little children that grew up without a Daddy,and my Mom,who must have overheard,I'm sure was not happy I got all the details.As a child,the fairy tales commingled with reality,past and present,and one day without becoming aware of it the bedtime fairy tales and stories stop and get tucked away in one's mind,with other childhood memories.
I probably never heard about them again until I was a teen-ager taking a European history class. In class,I heard those familiar names,Karl and Zita and learned that Karl had prevented the train carrying Lenin to Russia to enter Austria. I went home and told my Dad,who added that Karl I had known that Communists were sending Lenin secretly to Russia to take over after a planned overthrow of the Monarchy. They had to reroute the train through Sweden instead. My Dad said Karl knew how brutal the new regime would be and feared for the fate of the Russian people as well as the Tsar and his family. I'll spare you all the other thigs I learned. Well,as the years went by I learned a little more and then forgot all about it.
I can't tell you how,surprised and happy I was to read that my little girl memory,part real/part fantasy,tragedy about Kings and Queens was going to get a happy ending when the King turned into a Saint. I am really excited about it,I kept all of my Dad's books and tomorrow I am going into the basement and find anything he may have had from that era.
Yesterday I got a call,out of a clear blue sky,from a friend who wanted to know if I wanted to go to Rome for the Beatification. I had to explain that I HATE to fly. But it sure sounds tempting.
This whole event has such a dreamlike quality and seems to be taking on a life oof its own,or maybe I am really tired.
The communists did not send Lenin into Russia - the German High Command did.
Well, being found incorrupt, as with the Orthodox, is one sign of sanctity.
Isn't Prince Vladimir of Russia venerated by the Orthodox as one of the Saints?
The Austrian monarchy was losing its grip in Europe and it seems some royals lost touch with reality as their powers waned and they sought out a make beleive world to justfy their thrones.
St. Vladimir is probably sainted because once he accepted Christianity and was reborn, he gave up his pagan ways, wives, wars and beliefs and established Christianity in Russia and Ruthenia.
Not sure but sounds interesting.
He still was a ruler. There is nothing in Orthodxy which says rules of countries can't become Saints because of the job. Don't the Orthodox also venerate St. Olaf of Norway, St. Edward the Confessor of England, and St. Stephen of Hungary? Funny that so many Saints were then in the world around AD 1000-1050 as rulers of countries.
Sts Miltuin, Lazar, Dushan and all the other rulers. As I said I don't know what criteria are used to make someone a saint because many a saint weren't very saintly and still made the rollcall! I believe the Church of the East and the West do not use the same criteria. I think of saints in terms of Mother Teresa -- a woman who owned nothing but a Bible and a pair of sandals, and helped people as muchas she could. Anyone in power simply doesn't seem to compare to that.
Maybe you can shed some light on this.
Austria wasn't only blessed with Catholic emperors but chancellors too. Here's a recent book published by Angelus Press which relates:
An Austrian Patriot
Fr. Johannes Messner
Foreword by Dr. Alice von Hildebrand
The brief Chancellorship of Engelbert Dollfuss in Austria, lasting from May 20, 1932, until his assassination by Nazi agents on July 25, 1934, was one of the high-water marks of all European politics in the 20th century. Fr. Messners Dollfuss chronicles the work of the Chancellor, whose legacy is his effort to fashion Austrian public life around the social Doctrine of the Church as expressed in Pius XIs encyclical Quadragesimo Anno.
In a time like our own, when, as Messner writes, there was "hardly any hope that it would ever again be possible to establish a State on Christian, or rather on Catholic, principles," Austria under Chancellor Dollfuss represented "a check...[on] the process of eliminating God and the natural moral law from public life." Today it remains, as it was then, a beacon which "leads the way to the truly Christian State."
"[Dollfuss was] the representative of all that remains of the Holy Roman Empire." G.K. Chesterton
You have it quite wrong.
The traitor to the United States and enemy of the American people was the satanic freemason, Woodrow Wilson, for manufacturing our entry into that unfortunate war - and on the WRONG side at that!
And let us not forget his attempt at one world government after the war, the League of Nations.
After the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria by the Serbs, Russian, England and France couldn;t wait to declare war on Austria.
The financial rape and starvation of the German people after the war by England and France is the direct cause for the rise of Adolph Hitler.
Wilson was later followed by another traitor to the United States and enemy of the American people, the satanic freemason, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and his "new World Order".
Of course his version of one world government, the United Nations, is still standing and awaiting the rule of the antichrist.
I agree. Chancellor Dollfuss was a hero and a patriot as well as a true Catholic. His government stands as an example of the fact that a government need not be democratic to be morally good.
Democracy or republicanism is no guarantee of a moral State. The character of a government (i.e. the State) is determined by the character of its people (i.e. the Nation). A republic where Man is the measure of all things and moral values are a matter of political debate will end up being corrupt, injust, and unstable. An authoritarian government based upon catholic Christian principles and headed by leaders who sincerely believe in those principles is going to be a stable, just, and good government.
By and large, people get the government they deserve. A good people, who recognize the Natural Law and submit with Christian humility to all lawful authority, will generally end up with a good government that recognizes the Natural Law and submits with Christian humility to the Authority of Heaven.
That's why the Culture War is more important than any political or election battle. In general, good people = good government, no matter what form of government they have.
I missed this a week or so. (What being out of town does to one!)
Thanks for the post.
Thought you might be interested...
THE HERESY MYTH :"A number of legends associate the Merovingian kings with the royal bloodline of Jesus and Magdalene. One of their myths is that the ancestress of the Merovingians was a mermaid and another says that the mother of Merovee' was impregnated by a sea monster. In each of these myths, the prevailing kernal of truth seems to be that this ancestry is "half man, half fish." Since Christ was known to early Christians as the "ICHTHYS" and Mary Magdalene was identified with the shape known as the "Vessel of the Fish,"
The above blasphemy was copied from a convert to Merovingians belief they are descendents of Jesus and his relationship with Mary Magdalene. One of early Kings helped perpetrate this lie claiming he was the descendent of that relationship. Holy Blood, Holy Grail is book that spreads that lie.
I actually posted a whole thing about this somewhere. In any case the Holy Grail myth (the latest version) probably began with a late appearing misguided cult within the aristocracy of the Hapsburgs probably based on the the earier Merovingian legend.
No one remembers this origin so lots of people get fooled.
I think all of the Holy Grail and Lance of Destiny stuff as well as the Jesus and Mary Magdalene and family myths came out of South France and spread to Switzerland. I don't believe there was acceptance of any of this in th Austro-Hungarian Empire. To the best of my knowledge the Hapsburgs were always loyal to the Pope and the Catholic Church.
Then again,there was an Austrian King named Ludwig who was quite crazy. It is rumored that he was a homosexual and involved with things Masonic and he ended up suiciding or being murdered at a relatively young age. He had many very exquisite palaces and castles as well as a hunting lodge that serve the Aurstrian tourist industry well.
To understand what happened at Rennes-le-Chateau between 1887 and 1891, we must step back and look at one of Europe's oldest dynasties, the Hapsburgs. The historical origin of the Hapsburg family goes back to the 10th century and the intrigues of Otto I, the first Hohenstauffen to become Emperor of Charlemagne's revived Holy Roman Empire. At that point the empire consisted of little more than a collection of Germanic states.
But in the mid 1880's, this was in the future and the Hapsburgs of Austria-Hungary were the most powerful ruling family in Europe. They enter the story of Rennes-le-Chateau with the arrival of the emissary, supposedly sent on behalf of the Comtesse de Chambord, the former Marie de Hapsburg-Lorraine, daughter of Leopold II, Archduke of Tuscany and the Piedmont of Italy, and widow of the Pretender, Henry V of France. Her titles and family connections are important, because it is likely that her supposed emissary was her youngest brother, Johann Salvator de Hapsburg-Lorraine. It is also likely that the Comtesse had nothing to do with it, beside providing a convenient cover story.
The Abbe Boudet sent his book to all the ruling families of Europe including the Hapsburgs, and given their history, the Hapsburg-Lorraines in particular. Descended from King Rene's grandson and his marriage to a Hapsburg princess in the late 15th century, the Hapsburg-Lorraines have often been called the Latinized Hapsburgs. Their long reign in northern Italy and Provence seems to have inspired these Hapsburgs with something lacking in their Austrian cousins.
However, by the middle of the 19th century, the Grand Dukes of Tuscany had fallen on hard times. Leopold II, Marie and Johann's father, backed his cousin the Emperor Franz Joseph in the struggles for Italian independence. After the Emperor's defeat at Soliferno in 1859, Leopold lost the Grand Duchy. It became part of Victor Emmnauel's new Kingdom of Italy. Leopold's eldest son Ferdinand renounced his claim to the throne, as did the middle brother Ludwig, who became a locksmith. Johann, the youngest, became the last hope of the family for greatness. It was a role that, subsequent history would suggest, he wore with some reluctance.
By 1887, Johann had already come into conflict with his cousin, the Emperor Franz Joseph, and ended any hope of advancement within the House of Hapsburg. Johann was a renegade archduke, a man with ambitions, a divine sense of authority, and no way to express his talents and abilities. He was friends with liberals, free thinkers, and his Christianity was in doubt, a serious question in Catholic Vienna. He was known to have joined several chivalric secret orders, such as the Knights of the Rosy-Cross and the Order of the Crescent founded by his ancestor, King Rene, in which he was the hereditary Grand Master. Given his background and interests, it would be surprising if Boudet's book had not reached him.
And so, in the spring of 1887, Archduke Johann paid a visit to the Abbe Sauniere under the guise of an emissary from his sister, Marie de Chambord, with a plausible cover story for looking for the Abbe Bigou's hidden genealogies. After Sauniere made his initial discovery, he did not try to contact the Comtesse, but he was in close contact with Archduke Johann. In the fall of 1887, bank accounts were opened on the same day in the same Austrian bank by both Johann and the Abbe Sauniere. Transactions between these two accounts would continue for years, even after Johann's disappearance. They would later form the basis of an accusation of spying leveled against Sauniere.
From the fall of 1887 to the summer of 1889, Johann seems to have been a frequent visitor to Rennes-le-Chateau. To the locals, he became the Stranger, and was remembered long afterward as Monsieur Guillame. During those visits, the three co-conspirators, Sauniere, Johann and Boudet, unraveled the mystery. It revealed a discovery so powerful that the Archduke Johann took it to his cousin, the Crown Prince Rudolph of Austria-Hungary, and thereby set off a train of events that led, inexorably, to the cataclysm of World War I.
Not to repeat myself - but whoever started the "Holy Grail" cult - and I think it could have been French monarchists - then looked for converts and found a few among some mid level elements within the Hapsburg aristocracy who financed the cult or at least the recunstruction of the church at Renes. The purpose for the founding of this cult? A restitution of not only French monarchy but of European monarchies. Remember this is the age (late 19th century) of nationalisim, republicanisim, anti-clericalisim, anti-monarchists, anarchists, woman's rights, communisists, socialists, capatalisits, etc. and some it seems found comfort in the fact that European monarchies would return to their glory days because they bore the seed of Jesus.
Curious John Paul would honor a man who was part of the dynasty that occupied a part of his home country.
By the spring of 1888, however, things were beginning to move. Johann renewed his contacts with various occult and chivalric orders, and, most important of all, he reconnected with his cousin, the Crown Prince Rudolph of Austria-Hungary. Rudolph, six years younger than Johann and Sauniere, was an unhappy, frustrated and idealistic young liberal heir to a vast, conservative and above all Catholic Empire. In 1888 Rudolph turned 30, and his father -- Franz Joseph had been on the throne for forty years -- showed no inclination toward sharing authority or including his son in the workings of government. This, in many ways, was the crowning frustration of a tortured and disturbed life. As a young boy, Rudolph's tutor, the Count Gondrecourt, bullied and abused him in a misguided attempt to toughen his nerve.
By the time he turned thirty in 1888, Rudolph's brilliance had begun to turn wild. Rudolph and Johann would be in continual contact for the next eight months until Rudolph's death. While the great secret, or even Rennes-le-Chateau, is never mentioned, there is evidence that Johann and Rudolph were planning some sort of coup. In the fall of 1888, Rudolph almost shot his father, Franz Joseph, "accidentally" on the hunting field. Rudolph was asked to leave for the day and the matter was hushed up. It was also the last time Franz Joseph saw his son alive. On January 30th 1889, Rudolph and his current mistress, Maria Vetsera, were found dead in the Imperial hunting lodge at Mayerling. Rumors leaked out that it was a suicide pact between the lovers. This was scandalous enough to quell any further investigation, and might just have been a smoke-screen. It is possible that Rudolph posed such a threat to the Empire that he was killed by the Imperial secret service.
Rudolph lived at about the same time but was married to a woman who did not interest him much and had a "love" relationhip with a woman,with whom he later died in a murder/suicide arrangement at his hunting lodge. He too was thirty.
I think that there was probably some weakness in Rudolph,spoiled and energetic he may have been involved in some shenanigans but your case for the Hapsburg's involvement in these silly but dangerous cults is weak.
I posted who I thought backed this cult movement. I don't know why you think I meant the entire Hapsburg line?? I even bolded out that it was the minor members of the clan that got involved in this cult. Verstehen Sie?
I will be sure to mark the day for my personal celebration. The beatification of His Imperial Majesty serves as just one more confirmation that the wrong side won the First World War.
And all of us -- Christians, Jews, and Moslems -- have been suffering for it ever since. Truly, Woodrow Wilson was an agent of Satan.
Sorry,I read your first post on this thread and thought you held some animosity to the Austrian ruling family,if I was wrong,I apologise.
The Germans were on the side of the Christian killing Muslim Turks - the right side won that war.
PS: The Germans also helped secure communisim's foothold.
The "Muslim Turks" were the major force for secularism and modernity in the Islamic world. They used to govern Mecca and Medina. All those areas that are currently under Islamic fundamentalist rule in the Middle East were provinces severed from the Ottoman Empire by the English and French for the exclusive purpose of setting up their own puppet governments.
We can thank the victors of Versailles for the origins of the current turmoil in the Middle East.
The U.S. was brought into the war because of Woodrow Wilson's repeated violations of international law. This is the reason why William Jennings Bryan resigned as Secretary of State. American citizens were PURPOSELY used as human shields by the English government when it transported troops and munitions on auxiliary cruisers masquerading as civilian liners.
Wilson and his administration repeatedly lied to the American people in trumping up causes for America's entry into this war, which was fought primarily because American banking and industrial interests had become so heavily invested in the English war effort that a defeat would have spelled financial disaster.
The idea that an American administration would send its citizens to war in order to benefit the financial backers of the government, after trumping up bogus casus belli, is not such an innovation after all.
Proves your ignorance. The birth of Turkish modernity and secularisim only happened after WW1 with Attaturk and he was barely civilized.
Germany and Austria were a blight on civilization and deserved their just fate - twice.
Altho,observing the passing scene,I think maybe our President is a little too independent than the folks who placed him would like him to be. I seriously wonder if he really wants us to be where we are. I often think NOT.
Are there any good biographies of H.I.M. Karl?
I would recommend Joanna and James Bogle's A Heart for Europe, available through the Remnant Bookstore. This is a well-written, sympathetic and Catholic-oriented portrait of Karl and Zita.
Thanks for calling my attention to this thread.
Thank you for your recommendation.
The United States and England have done far worse, not only to foreigners, but to their own citizens, or -- in the case of the U.S. -- those unfortunate natives who happened to be in the path of its expansion.
Unless of course, you are one of those who believes in "my country right or wrong", which is evidently the case.
For an American to call any other nation a blight on civilization is the ultimate hypocrisy. Look around you.
"America is the first country to have gone from barbarism to decadence without the usual intervening period of civilization." -- Oscar Wilde
That is my point - this man was no saint - his empire was just as bad as all empires. He did not even have the saintlyness to adhere to the treaty he signed with Serbia over Bosnia which caused the Great War nor end the war once it turned into an evil slaughter. He was no saint - he was an inbred man of an inbred royal line.
The treaty *he* signed? Charles I did not become Emperor until 1916, and was not even heir apparent until 1914. I assure you, he signed no treaties with anyone. Besides which, no treaty was responsible for the Great War. If you want to pin blame on someone, blame the Serbian terrorists who shot Archduke Francis Ferdinand or the scheming French politicians who kept pushing the Russians to mobilize against Austria and Germany just so they could get their grubby, republican hands on Elsass-Lothringen again.
"nor end the war once it turned into an evil slaughter" you say? Pray sir, you are misinformed. Emperor Charles I was, in fact, the ONLY leader in Europe, with the possible exception of Pope Benedict XV, who truly desired and worked for peace. He is certainly the only ruler to offer to give up some territory if it would mean an end to hostilities. He placed the welfare of his people ahead of personal pride and national ambition.
Charles I is a representation of the finest tradition of Hapsburg princes, following the illustrious example of Empress Maria Theresa, Emperor Ferdinand II, King Philip II or Emperor Charles V. He was a true son of the Church and a worthy successor to Francis Joseph, "the last monarch of the old school".
May God advance his cause and may Blessed Charles I pray for us.
Shooting a head of state who has command and control responsibilities is not an act of terrorism. If it was every time we bombed Saddam could be called an act of terrorism. And it was the Austrians who signed a treaty returning Bosnia to Serbia which they reneged against. As a king he inherits the signature. Responsibilities are hereditary.
Sun 15 Aug 2004
Serbs paid dearly for their freedom
GERALD Warner better go back to school and study history before he freely revises it to suit his own agenda.
In his column Did Britain really have to be in the war to end all wars last week he makes several hideous mistakes. Or worse, deliberate omissions.
The truly injured party was the Serbs, not the Austrians. Missing from his article is any mention about the assassination of the Serbian king three years prior to the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand.
It is apparent by this racist slur at the Serbs that the writer believes it appalling to kill an archduke but acceptable to liquidate a Serbian king as Austria and their Croatian vassals were highly implicated in the murder of the Serbian king, especially Ante Pavelich, who headed the first independent state of Croatia (1941), a Nazi puppet state.
Also missing from the facts is that Serbia was internationally recognised at the Congress of Berlin (1876) as an international nation with one exception. Austria would be the protectorate of Bosnia for 44 years. When it came time to return Bosnia to the Serbs, Austria and the archduke refused.
As though this was not insulting enough, the archduke went to Sarajevo on the most sacred holy holiday of the Serbian people, Vidovdan, the commemoration of the Battle of Kosovo when the Serbs lost 77,000 victims and the loss of their nation to Ottoman slavery for 412 years.
If I were alive then I would have assassinated the archduke myself.
It is also insulting that Gerald. Warner makes no mention of the fact that the Serbs lost 52% of their adult male population in the [First] World War and 22 years later lost 1.4 million of their citizens to the Nazi hordes.
The Serbs have paid dearly for their freedom from the Austrian Empire - a corrupt government that deserved to be destroyed.
William Dorich, Los Angeles
Since you seem to be unable to tell the difference between an act of war and an act of terrorism, this is probably pointless, but here goes...
Anyone who has studied this period knows that the Black Hand terrorists targeted Archduke Francis Ferdinand precisely *because* he was not an enemy to the Slavic people, but their friend. He was an open advocate for "trialism", of making the southern Slavs equal partners with the Magyars of Hungary and the Germans of Austria. The Black Hand however, were Serbian ultra-nationalists (nationalism being pure poison for a multi-ethnic empire like Austria) who wanted to build a massive "Greater Serbia".
The problem they had with the Archduke is that, if he lived to become Emperor and made the Slavs partners with the Austrians and Hungarians, they might (gasp) be content and not wish to revolt in favor of joining their grand Serbian nation-state. Therefore, by assassinating the Archduke, the Austrians would come down hard on the Slavs and thus drive them into the arms of the Serbian nationalists who were planning war, safe in their knowledge that big brother Russia would come to their aid.
A very small part. Actually, almost all of Poland was under the control of the Tsar, and were quite happy when German and Austrian troops drove back their rulers. In fact, it was the Central Powers who set up the *first* Polish state, though they were careful to make it a Kingdom of Poland rather than a republic, a nation which the Allies quickly sold out after the war was over to establish one with a government more to their liking and which would include alot of German (rather than Polish) territory - recipe for future disaster. During the war, the German Kaiser, Wilhelm II, even sent relief supplies to the Polish Jews of Warsaw whom the Russians had left to starve.
In fact, the founder of even the republican Polish government, whose name escapes me at the moment, was originally an officer in the Austro-Hungarian Army. I have also heard from at least one source (which may be entirely wrong I admit) said that Pope John Paul II was named after Emperor Charles (Karol - Karl).
He would have made who co-equal - the Catholic Croats or the Orthodox Slavs co-equals? Try your apologist view of history somewhere else. PS: The Hungarians never loved being part of that crappy empire either.