Just sayin...
Posted on 03/23/2015 2:34:33 PM PDT by walkinginthedesert
Thanks for posting this..
Most of the footnotes got cut off. I’m interested in 32
"political thought and inspiration of the politico-religious revolt of the sixteenth century" = code for the Protestant Reformation?
I don’t believe that the church at that time actually believed as a matter of doctrine that there was a divine right of kings, but allowed the concept in order to keep the various monarchs in line.
I think it was more along the lines that kings supported by the church acted in the name of God, Christ, and the vicar of Rome. It was tolerated as a rule as long as it did not impinge on the actual control the church held over much of what went on and how life was conducted. If a monarch stepped outside of acceptable bounds they were threatened with excommunication which would lose them support among monarchs who held to church doctrine.
Henry VIII put the divine right concept and the power of the church on a downhill slide when he defied Rome by divorcing his wives and establishing his own religious doctrines. It took a while but the real political power of the church to control kingdoms and raise armies declined after that point.
The Byzantine notion of a God Ordained Emperor presiding over a Christian polity is an image, or better said, a foreshadowing, of heaven; not so bad a system. The economics of it are attractive as well. The Western notion of Divine Right is somewhat different, however.
In the internet age, there is no excuse to be ignorant of the foundations of American exceptionalism.
The “Divine Right” of Kings is very much a late Protestant innovation. That said, monarchy is the only form of government really found in Scripture. The Old testament in particular is full of references to it, and the importance of respecting authority sanctified by God. This theme is also found in the Epistle to the Romans. Bad things happened to those who disrespected anointed Kings.
In many respect Christian theology is monarchist. After all we do not worship a divine President or Prime Minister. We worship the King of Kings. For many centuries it was accepted that earthly society should mirror the divine order. This was never accomplished with anything even approaching perfection, because humanity is flawed. But as K noted it was attempted, notably in the late (Eastern or Byzantine) Roman Empire. In the West something like it could be found in the very byzantine (pun intended) organization of the Holy Roman Empire. And of course the Papacy itself perhaps comes as close as any institution ever has to asserting an absolute divine mandate.
A strong argument could be made that classical monarchism is the best and most Christian form of government. Consider that with few exceptions almost all monarchs were limited in fact, if not always theory, in the exercise of their power. They were constrained by custom, the aristocracy who jealously guarded their prerogatives and the Church that enforced moral boundaries on the power of the state.
Provided he did not incite rebellion or sedition, he paid his taxes (which were a pittance compared to those in any modern democracy), did not openly attack the established church, and did not violate the laws common to every orderly society that protect persons and property; a man who lived in a monarchical state during or before the age of the ancien regime could easily spend his entire life without ever coming into contact with the government.
By contrast, the modern state, a product of the so called “Enlightenment” has been the source of every tyranny and state sponsored atrocity one can think of. The motto of the French Revolution is “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” But liberty and egalitarianism are incompatible. And the French Revolution unleashed a river of blood letting that has not stopped to this very day.
Democracy is inherently antithetical to liberty since it establishes the power of any majority over any minority. And history has shown again and again that over time, any theoretical constraints on such power are eventually eroded. Indeed monarchists are often fond of saying that democracy is just two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.
So yes, with many caveats, I am a supporter of limited Sacramental Christian Monarchy. In fact one of the lesser sacraments (now sadly in disuse) of the Church is the rite of anointing for an Orthodox Monarch.
Render Unto Ceaser
Very informed and well written response. I am in agreement, but to reference a right wing philosopher, Evola, we no longer occupy a traditional world. Custom has collapsed and so we have pretend monarchs like Barry who quite literally control everything.
The difference was that the Catholic Church always viewed the Church and the State (that is, the King) as two separate entities, even at times when the Catholic Church was the official state church. The Church, in fact, often ended up opposed to the civil power, even though it was often simply pragmatic - because the civil power (the King) had decided he wanted to seize Church properties or take over powers and property from bishops or abbots.
Collusion or accommodation between secular and religious powers is never good, but it’s different from a theocracy, where the King (or civil authority) is also a religious figure and gets to be in charge of both aspects of his subjects’ lives. That was what Henry VIII introduced, and what the Church opposed.
Luther saw according special status to the Crown as a way to gain power for his movement, and of course, Calvin was a genuine theocrat, and envisaged a society where the civil and secular powers were one and the same. The Puritans (Calvinists) who came to the US had this in mind, but after a mini-reign of terror in their area, their project didn’t last because it’s simply unsustainable in Christianity. (Islam, however, does operate on a theocratic basis.)
Israel was led for 400 years by prophet and judges.
Utterly ignorant and inexcusable for anyone to advocate monarchy after Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense.
“Israel was led for 400 years by prophet and judges.”
Wouldn’t that be a form of limited monarchy?
“There is no power but from God and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he who resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God”
What a pantload. So Sophie Scholl was resisting God with the anti Nazi white rose movement. I don’t believe this kind of sophistry for a moment. It has been carefully honed for 2000 years as a people control measure that it is unchristian to ever resist any civil authority.
A much better example is found in clearing the temple.
How so, there was no succession, God picked the prophets and judges. No taxes for the king, no conscription for a standing army. That was the plan until the people went to Samuel and wanted a king so they could be like the surrounding countries. The trade didn't always work out.
Alexander the Great's empire was divided by 4 of his generals. Additionally, the Romans had no king by the time they made it to Judea.
This apologetic data mining exercise misses one important point. None of the founders I am aware of used any of those sources, or at least it wasn’t explained in the article.
You cannot simply find a catholic thinker here and there that has a similar quote to a founder, and conclude that is the source for the principle expressed in the Constitution.
To make it more fun, it would be nice to know the context in which the catholic thinker made the remark. Was it a general epistle on freedom? Or was it something very specific to an issue they faced at that moment? Because the fact of the matter, is that the catholic leadership did not defend individual freedom during that era.
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.