The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 456 guests, and 39 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
nelson Chase-

Originally Posted by Nelson Chase
Quote
I would argue thouh that Governments of the People are not of God. it is the Republicanism and Liberalism of the 18th century, that continues today, that defies God.

Monarchs are people to, aren't they? And the have oppressed people and claimed they are doing it in the name of God. That to defies God.

Quote
Monarchy can in the end declare God as Supreme, a Republic as we practice it today recognises man as supreme.

You are assuming much, are you not? Yes a Monarchy can...but that doesn't mean they do. Monarchs place themselves above other men (God ordained me to rule you!) and can claim to serve God but are really dictators who have no regard for God and his Church. Republicanism today, which isn't true Republicanism envisioned by our Founders- which allowed man to live freely and worship freely but not infringe on others who may think differently (I know it didn't work out that way- way to idealized but worthy to try to live out)- is more about power- i.e the Executive branch.

Quote
I find the instability of Republicanism terrible.

You are allowed to hold such views, thats the great thing about Liberty envisioned by our Founders, but I would say that we aren't living in a true Republic anymore more a neo-Democracy controlled by an over reaching executive branch. In a monarchy would I be allowed to hold dissenting views about the King/Queen or Royal Family? And be vocal about it?

Quote
This thread was s Rant not mean tot convey deeper thoughts.

But it is good to have free exchanges of ideas.

Quote
For the modern world I would choose a constitutionals Monarchy that allows the King substantial, but not unlimited Power

Power Corrupts...sadly even in a Republic and the most idealized well meaning Monarchy. Even the idealized Byzantine Monarchs had their faults (and some promoted heresy with absolute force!)

Quote
Plus, lets face it, politicians are greedy and ambitious, and we are lead by them.

What makes you think it would go away if we had a King? Look at England and the Royal Wedding. Is spending all that money not greedy? Why should English tax $ go to another person's wedding? What makes someone better than another man? Is it because he has "royal" blood? All men are equal before God- be it Bishop, Priest, laymen, or King.

We are all equal. This is the ideal of the Founding Fathers of our small Limited Constitutional Republic. (yes they had their faults- especially in regards to slavery) While they may not have all been perfect and orthodox Christians they believed that if you where an orthodox Christian you have the right to be one just don't tell someone else they have to be.

Quote
"I called to mind the Prophet, as he cried: I am earth and ashes; and I looked again into the graves and beheld the bones laid bare, and I said: Who then is the king or the warrior, the rich man or the needy, the upright or the sinner?"

Good discussion and have a Blessed Paschal season. smile


Mr. Chase, I never believed the old Adage that Power Corrupts. I don’t’ think a good and honest man, who has no vices or sin in his life, will upon gaining power also acquire vice and sin. There is nothing Inherent in having power that corrupts us, rather, those who are in Power are simply in a position to exercise their corruption and, by excursive, strengthen it. Power gives them the ability, and often either the ability to cover it up, or to simply escape responsibility for any bad conduct.

However, all the same sins and vices we see in the Powerful we see also in the Poor. Casual and hedonistic Sex is as frequent in the Trailer Park in Rural Arkansas as it is in the Powerhouses in Washington DC, Drug use is as frequent, and so is Theft, cheating the system, nepotism, lying, berating others, and plays for power and control.

These things are tempered only in the Middle Class. The Reason is, accountability. People in the Middle Class can’t afford a host of minions to cover up indiscretions or to strong-arm others to do things their way as the rich and powerful have, and lack the Close knit Survival instinct based buddy system the Trailer park has. Further, those in the Trailer Parks or Slums aren’t expected to be much in society, so don’t need to cover up anything. You will find many who freely admit to having Fathered Numerous Children by many women, none of whom they married. Some will tell you thy smoke pot, do Cocaine, or smoke Meth. How will this impact them? They are seen as Scum, the Dregs of Society. No one bats an eye to them. The Politician or Celebrity or powerful Businessman can loose his Reputation, and thus the support of his Clientele. However, he’s also in a position to buy off people, or to make them disappear. Also, being such a Visible Face and often the central aspect of a Business or Political Movement, the politician or Powerful Celebrity knows he is indispensable, and others will find it in their own best interest to help him avoid Scandal.

Only the Middle Class can’t get away with this. If a man works hard, has insurance on his Car, House, and Health, has to report to work from 9-5, and must make a life for himself has such Responsibility that he can’t risk being caught in a Scandal, and must do a reasonably good job else he has no more Employment.

If a man in a run down Trailer Park, who has been arrested for Petty Theft all the time, and whose known to smoke Pot, and who collects Welfare and only does a minimal amount of menial Labour to get by, is caught Cheating on his Wife, he may get a Divorce but it doesn’t effect his Reputation. If he Smokes pot all day and doesn’t show up to work, it doesn’t effect anything.

If a Middle Class man cheats and is Caught, his Divorce may cause him a large sum of his money, his House, and perhaps even his Job. This is True especially of those who want to promote a certain Corporate image, but even where Divorce is not considered as bad, his emotional State may cause his work to slip and thus his Employment to be harmed.

But a Celebrity Star of a Big TV show? His face is so identified with a Certain character he plays they can’t fire him without damaging the show which relies on Viewers loving this man, so they just don’t do anything about it unless the Divorce hit’s the Papers, becomes a Scandal, and effects Ratings. Even then, his Name Recognition will get him a job elsewhere soon enough after the Heat dies down.


Politicians are like Celebrities in that way, and their Campaigns are associated with them as Personalities. Its in the interest of their party, and their backers, to make sure the Candidate is protected form Scandal.

Far from scaring these people off, they think that their money and position allows them to do what they please.


It isn’t Power that Corrupts, it is Humanity that is Corrupt already, and Power simply acts as a means to exercise that Corruption.


By the way, it’s not “England” and the Royal Wedding, but the United Kingdom. Why do people think England is its own separate Nation? Did you all stop reading History before 1701?

As to your point about Greed and the Royal Wedding, I don’t see how spending money is the same as Greed. Yes the Wedding was Opulent, but Opulence is not synonymous with an unhealthy desire for accumulating Greater Wealth is it?

The Wedding was the Wedding of a Prince, and as such a Regal Event. But Regal is befitting a Pretence, and as St. ****** Said, it is not True Humility to pretend to be Lower than your Station, but Humility is in exercising the Station and pretending to no Higher.

The Wedding gave us something Beautiful and Hopeful.

Another has answered your objection about Monarchy. Provided you don’t advocate the removal of the King from the Throne, most Monarchies have been far more Liberal in allowing dissenting opinion than have Republics. The Romantic Image of Monarchy being oppressive and Republics allowing Freedom was created to justify the Revolutions, but in Practice, the more Democratic a Nation becomes, the less Free it becomes. Republics are, by nature, a halfway house between Monarchy and Democracy, and the tendency in the beliefs of the Enlightenment lend towards Democracy and Collectivism. It is from them that came Communism, for example.

Republics do not guarantee Free Speech, and Monarchies do not guarantee a lack of Free Speech.

I also don’t think Monarchies are Dictatorships, and see no reason why a Rightful Heir to the Throne can’t inherit it? Or why this makes them bad somehow, when this is who most other things tend to be given in society. The idea of Inheritance as Evil in Private mattes was challenged by the rise of Republicanism by the way. Look at the Jacobins, then Marx. Also, the Jacobins went out of their way to abolish Christianity from Society, even killing those who continued to attend Mass or renounce Sacred Vows. Priests where murdered in the Streets, all in the name of Republicanism. Spare me the claim that this wasn’t True Republicanism.



I also don’t think Monarchy inevitably leads to the removal our Right to Free Worship or free Assembly or right to own a Gun automatically just because they are Monarchies. Some Monarchies even made it against the Law not to own a Gun, for example, whole most Republics these days remove that right to greatly restrict it. It seems you think Monarchy inevitably leads to one set of Laws and a republic another, and yet you evade this by claiming those Republics which don’t live up to what as Envisioned by Americas Founders is not “True Republicanism”. That just comes of as a no True Scotsman Fallacy.

Republics have oppressed people, both in the name of God, like Cromwell, or in the name of The People, like Mao or Stalin.

Even George Washington brutally suppressed revolutionaries against the New United States.

So lets not pretend Monarchies have been more abusive or remove more Rights than Republicanism.

Pound for Pound republics remove more Rights and Freedoms.

America Alone has made it work and even then its because of the near Divine Status of the Constitution, and how it contains the Bill of Rights. Still, even America has its problems.



Last edited by ZAROVE; 05/03/11 02:01 AM. Reason: Small revision.
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Quote
I don’t’ think a good and honest man, who has no vices or sin in his life, will upon gaining power also acquire vice and sin.

Then you have a much higher ideal of human nature than anyone I know. No man has lived and not sinned.

You are living in a far more idealized world than I, who believes very much in a Constitutional Republic governed by laws. Show me an example of a monarch that you speak of?

What of the Roman Republic? The Roman Republic is a wonderful example of a Republic. Sadly they feel victim to someone thinking he should be King for life and the world's first lasting Republic became an Empire.

Last edited by Nelson Chase; 05/03/11 02:17 AM.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 115
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 115
Zarove,
I will say this, politically is a Monarchy of the style you advocate possible? Not in the near term. What you are advocating really is radical to most Americans! And you will have to convince people to willingly give up representative government.
I still say that America has done up till now a decent job defending the faith!

I do agree for some countries Monarchy can work and I think your plan for America would actually be a great reform for the UK! But not the US!


Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 115
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 115
Quote
[/quote]should be honest and look also at the other Republics, such as once upon a Time how France was strongly Catholic and It was the Jacobins who went on a DeChristianisation campaign in the name of Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality. The French Revolutionaries also inspired most European Republicanism, especially Karl Marx, and in Europe Republicanism is mostly linked to Atheistic Philosophical beliefs.
Quote
It is because of the deliberate nature of our political system that prevents DeChristianisation campaigns from succeeding as they did in Europe. The genius of our system.

Quote
American Christianity drapes Nationalism and Political Ideology in the Cloak of Christianity to give it greater Authority by usurping Christ, but most often what is advocated by the Right ( and even the Left when they do this) is not what Historical Christianity Taught.[quote]
Be careful of not judging the hearts of everyone in America! I would challenge you on the sincerity of many Americana's Christian beliefs. Yes there are media types who make money off of God, and the Almighty will deal with them!! Check out how much Americans privately give to charity annually verse European Countries. Understand how the government responds to other countries and peoples after a man made or natural catastrophe! Does it demonstrate a Christian understanding of charity?

Now is society getting more and more vulgar? YES! Is it becoming more pagan? YES! Is the answer to use government to force people into believing? NO! The answer is to put God back into the lives of our families! Then using a Christian model rebuild our families!

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Scotty-

Originally Posted by Scotty
Quote
should be honest and look also at the other Republics, such as once upon a Time how France was strongly Catholic and It was the Jacobins who went on a DeChristianisation campaign in the name of Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality. The French Revolutionaries also inspired most European Republicanism, especially Karl Marx, and in Europe Republicanism is mostly linked to Atheistic Philosophical beliefs.
Quote


It is because of the deliberate nature of our political system that prevents DeChristianisation campaigns from succeeding as they did in Europe. The genius of our system.


But its not the Genius of the Republican form of Government. If it were then the form itself would porevent the DeChristianisation proccess, but it dint in France or Russia.

America faced no DeChristianisation because the Revolt was not a True Total Social Revolution. Basically the American Revolution was promoted by Wealthy Land owners who saw it as an Opportunity to expand into the forbidden Western Territories and to end the Import Fee's on goods so they could personally be Enriched. They had no intention of removing all Social structures and Institutions and focused their energies solely on Independance. Origionally they didn't even know it'd be a Republic at the end.

America's Funding Fathers didn't really push for the abolition of Christianity, and thats why there was no such Movement. However, one can easily imagine a very different America had they decided to attack Christianity, but that different America would not be a Monarchy, it'd still be a Republic.

Americas Unique Cultural and Historical Development is much more responsible for America's Christianity not being so eroded than is its Governmental Form.



Quote
[/quote]American Christianity drapes Nationalism and Political Ideology in the Cloak of Christianity to give it greater Authority by usurping Christ, but most often what is advocated by the Right ( and even the Left when they do this) is not what Historical Christianity Taught.
Quote


Be careful of not judging the hearts of everyone in America! I would challenge you on the sincerity of many Americana's Christian beliefs.


I didn't say the beliefs weren't sincerely Held, I said that there is a tendency in America to tie Christianity to the American Founding Fathers and American Ideology and then to infuse it further with ones own partisan political Ideology.


While I am also not saying all are Sincere, I do believe a good many are both Sincere in their Love of America and Sincere in their profession of Christian Faith. However, they are also not Truly studying it with an open Mind and letting Christianity form them, they are molding Christianity to fit their own personal visions of what its suppose to mean, just as they mold America's Founding Vision into what they want it to be.


Quote
Yes there are media types who make money off of God, and the Almighty will deal with them!! Check out how much Americans privately give to charity annually verse European Countries. Understand how the government responds to other countries and peoples after a man made or natural catastrophe! Does it demonstrate a Christian understanding of charity?


You conflate, with regret, American Foreign Policy with American citizenry's. This is regrettable as it mixes the two and acts as if both are motivated in the same way.

American Foreign Policy changes with each new Administration, and the Aid they bring often comes with certain strings attacked and is just as often used as a mean to manipulate other Nations into doing things the way America wants them done, or to boost International good will.

But thats way too complex a subject as too many are invovled with too many Factors.

As to Private Citesens and Charity, as I said I don't doubt many are Sincere in their Faith, but I've run into one too many who think I am a raving Liberal progressive because I am a Monarchist and then quote W. Cleon Skousen to prove it to think they are anywhere near aware of what either Christianity or America's Founders really said.


American Christians often think Israel prior to King Saul was a Constitutional Republic just like America, for example, or that America's Founding Fathers based their Governmental Form on the Bible, esp, the book of Deuteronomy.

Its in "The 5000 Year Leap", a Book Mr. beck describes as Divinely Inspired, just like the Constitution itself is described as Divinely Inspired.

The point is, they Love to identify themselves as American and Christian, but really read into those things their one biased view of what they mean with no True Understanding of Real History or actual Scriptural Teachings.

This doesn't make them insincere or evil or uncharitable, it means they aren't Historically what Christianity has been, and aren't really aware of what America's Founders believed in.

Once you say Monarchism and Communism share the same system of oppression and Monarchists and communist's are essentially the Same, you really can't claim any sort of Rational Ground for your beliefs, but this is exactly what many say these days.

Quote
Now is society getting more and more vulgar? YES! Is it becoming more pagan? YES! Is the answer to use government to force people into believing? NO! The answer is to put God back into the lives of our families! Then using a Christian model rebuild our families!

Thats nice. But I never advocated forcing people to believe. I advocated the Government encouraging proper morals and Christianity, but Promotion is not compulsion.

I'd also say you missed my real point.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Scotty-

Originally Posted by Scotty
Zarove,
I will say this, politically is a Monarchy of the style you advocate possible? Not in the near term. What you are advocating really is radical to most Americans!

Republicanism was Radical to most Americans in 1770...

No one predicted America would become a Republic, and few if any really were agitating for one. Even the Sons of Liberty saw themselves as Loyal to the King, and merely opposed the Parliament. They had hoped the King would side with them, in fact. They turned on him when he sided with Parliament.

Even then many were Monarchists.

Quote
And you will have to convince people to willingly give up representative government.

No you wouldn’t.

In case you had forgotten to read your History books, King George the Third was not an Absolute Monarch who ruled alone and by decree. Britain has had representative Government for Centuries longer than America has existed.

While the Neo-Feudalism would require giving up Representative Government, Constitutional Monarchy doesn’t.


Quote
I still say that America has done up till now a decent job defending the faith!

History proves you wrong.
You do know that up till recently More Canadians attended Church percentage wise than Americans, Right?

In fact, in the American Colonies Christianity nearly died out, and everyone knew the whole of the Faith would be extinguished on these Shored. This Changed in 1734 with Jonathan Edwards preaching “Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God’, which lead to the Great Awakening. Even so, Christianity began to die again in the early 19th Century, only to be revived again in **** by the Second great Awakening. The Civil War and Second World War also saw Revivals, but often in American History you see steep decline, such as the Late 19th Century, around the 1870’s-1930’s.

In that period, Socialism and even Communism were common in the US and people simply knew that Christianity would whither and die.

The Modern trend in America with Christianity began in the 1970’s with the Jesus People, and was eventually codified into Political Culture by Pat Robertson and the Moral Majority.


Quote
I do agree for some countries Monarchy can work and I think your plan for America would actually be a great reform for the UK! But not the US!

I’d agree that the UK needs this reform. The current Constitutional Butchery carried out by all parties is appalling and the Life Peerages horrendous. But I say what’s good for the Mother is good for the Son.



Last edited by ZAROVE; 05/03/11 04:09 AM. Reason: 1734
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
At any event, a Monarchy provides Unity and can act independently of special interests, and is a model after Heaven itself, and more accords itself with our own Human Nature of desiring Familial relationships.

As someone on this Thread, I think you Scotty, said, the Catholic Church condemned Republicanism. Do you really think this was done lightly?

Nationalism, Republicanism, and Modernism are all facets of the same thing and really aren’t beneficial to either Human Liberty or our Salvation. I see no reason to pretend they are.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
Quote
At any event, a Monarchy provides Unity and can act independently of special interests, and is a model after Heaven itself, and more accords itself with our own Human Nature of desiring Familial relationships.

Except that, throughout history, monarchy has only rarely lived up to that ideal. Monarchy can be extremely divisive, due to the hereditary principle of succession, which means power often falls into the hands of a minor or a mental incompetent, frequently leading to disputed succession and civil war (I suppose if I limited myself just to France and England, I would have a very long list of succession crises indeed).

The period during which monarchy perhaps operated closest to the ideal was the period from AD 97 (the accession of the Emperor Nerva) to AD 180 (the death of Marcus Aurelius), because, during this period the Empire was blessed with a line of childless Emperors who chose their successors by adoption from among the most able and worthy men available--Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius Pius, and Marcus Aurelius). But what happened then? Marcus had a biological son, Commodus, and the hereditary principle being too powerful to overcome, Commodus succeeded his father at the age of eighteen. In the subsequent twelve years he proved himself utterly incapable of ruling, and ended the way of so many failed Emperors--with a sword in his guts.

There then followed a period of more than a century in which no Emperor reigned longer than fifteen years, most less than two, almost all dying at the hands of assassins, during which time the Empire was invaded, impoverished and brought to the edge of ruin. The Emperor Diocletian attempted to circumvent the principle of hereditary succession by establishing the Tetrarchy, in which the senior emperor, the Augustus, selected a colleague to serve with him as Augustus. Each Augustus then selected a junior colleague to serve as Caesar, there being then four Emperors--two Augusti and two Caesari. But the entire system broke down within a year of Diocletian's retirement, because hereditary succession could not be avoided. There then followed about twenty years of civil war, after which Constantine was last man standing and sole emperor. He attempted to have his three surviving sons rule jointly, but within a couple of years, Constantine II and Constans were toast, and Constantius was last man standing. Needless to say, neither the Roman Empire nor its Byzantine successor ever found a solution to the problem of succession.

As for monarchies being immune from special interests, please, don't be naive. In addition to favoring one economic or geographic interest over another, monarchs are notorious for having personal favorites (look up "Piers Gaveston", for instance), on whom the shower all sorts of offices and perquisites, usually to the detriment of the kingdom. Kings are just as influenced by special interests as any other politician--they just aren't as accountable.

Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 7
R
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
R
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 7


Abolish ALL MONARCHY including Czars and Emperors, yes even Byzantine, Jesus Christ is the only King! Overthrow them all!


Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 7
R
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
R
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 7
Originally Posted by byzanTN
"

It amazes me the number of people who romanticize the past, without any clue as to the harshness and brutality that existed then. It wasn't all glorious buildings, great music, and splendid art. Life for the average person could be terrible - and generally was. It's easy to be anachronistic when you don't have to endure the reality.

Exactly right! Boy, do I long for the "good old days" when the Papal police could abduct a Jewish child from his father http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Mortara or even better yet burn you at the stake for the great crime of publishing a bible in the vernacular!

I also do not pretend that Orthodox Governments or countries have never abused power.

It is interesting that the Roman Church since Vatican II has just about dismantled all of the Catholic governments that it had worked for centuries to gain control over.

Compare Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae with the writings of previous popes, and you will find an amazing change of attitude.

This is what Pope Leo XIII wrote about the Church in America in his encyclical Longinqua (Jan 6, 1895):


"For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance. Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority."


Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Mr. Chase-

Originally Posted by Nelson Chase
Quote
I don’t’ think a good and honest man, who has no vices or sin in his life, will upon gaining power also acquire vice and sin.

Then you have a much higher ideal of human nature than anyone I know. No man has lived and not sinned.

You are living in a far more idealized world than I, who believes very much in a Constitutional Republic governed by laws. Show me an example of a monarch that you speak of?

What of the Roman Republic? The Roman Republic is a wonderful example of a Republic. Sadly they feel victim to someone thinking he should be King for life and the world's first lasting Republic became an Empire.


There was one Sinless man.

That said, I never meant to convey that I thought a Monarhc would be Sinless or that many men are Sinless, I know all men will sin. My point is that power does not intrinsically make one a Sinner where one was previosuly a Saint.

In other words, I don't think Power is in itself corruptive.


Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Stuart-

Quote
Except that, throughout history, monarchy has only rarely lived up to that ideal.

Actually Monarchy has typically been closer to its Ideal than Republicanism has. Again, if we are honest with ourselves we’d also admit that Republicanism as we practice it has not lead to the Idealised Vision that was held of it by its original Advocates in the Modern Era. John Locke believed that it’d lead to Universal peace, has it? Has it really lead to Greater Individual Freedom? I see Liberty stripped form people in most Republics, even in America to a great degree these days, and not because we somehow are no longer a True Republic.

It was also suppose to ensure an end to corruption, for Aristocrats, not answerable to the People, were decadent and selfish and given to all manner of Vices, but the people, if given a choice, would only choose the best and never elect an Immoral Man. If they did, because he managed to fool them, he’d soon be out of office the next Election. This was an argument at least, but one the Kennedy’s alone disprove. Or Bill Clinton.

Republicanism also see’s great moral declines in society, as a result of its inherent fostering of a selfish attitude.

Republicanism has not lead to peace amongst men and Brotherhood either. Its not lead to that perfected utopia that many have imagined it would lead to.


Quote
Monarchy can be extremely divisive, due to the hereditary principle of succession, which means power often falls into the hands of a minor or a mental incompetent, frequently leading to disputed succession and civil war (I suppose if I limited myself just to France and England, I would have a very long list of succession crises indeed).

There are three main problems with this Argument.

1: You can always simply create better succession Laws that prevent the Throne from falling into the Hands of a Minor. EG, at present the UK’s throne cannot be occupied by someone under the age of 18. If the heir is below the age of 18, then a regent is appointed who Reigns in his or her stead. The Regency act also allows the Crown powers to be given to a caretaker in the event of the Kings mental disability.

While this may have been a Historical problem, it’s not insurmountable.

2: The situations you mentioned are not Socially divisive, really. A Disputed Throne usually only effects the Noble Houses involved in the Dispute, and while Civil Wars can happen, and the people can take sides, those sorts of Dynastic Wars simply aren’t all that common.

Likewise, there is no social division in a generalised sense of how the Nation should be directed, only by whom is the Lawful Successor. All agree to what is Lawful and all Agree that everyone should be Subject to the same Crown. The dispute is simply on who is the Proper inheritor of the Crown, not in the Principle of the Crown itself, and people don’t choose who should sit on the Throne based solely on Partisan political Agendas and a desire to force through their own goals.

Yes that happens too, but there has to be some tenable argument for taking the Throne besides mere Popularity.


3: Republics also have Civil Wars in disputed Elections. The Ivory Coast just got over one where an Incumbent refused to vacate his office and the incoming President had to fight a literal shooting war over who was the Rightful President of the Ivory Coast.

Even in America, the Election of Abraham Lincoln lead to the Secession of 13 American States to form the Confederate States of America, and a Civil War ensues.


If you really think Monarchy has the Drawback of Succession Crises that Republicanism avoids by its supposed peaceful transition of power, then you haven’t studied History too closely. The same sorts of Civil Wars over who should lead have broken out in Republics and tend to be more common in Republics.

Quote
The period during which monarchy perhaps operated closest to the ideal was the period from AD 97 (the accession of the Emperor Nerva) to AD 180 (the death of Marcus Aurelius), because, during this period the Empire was blessed with a line of childless Emperors who chose their successors by adoption from among the most able and worthy men available--Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius Pius, and Marcus Aurelius). But what happened then? Marcus had a biological son, Commodus, and the hereditary principle being too powerful to overcome, Commodus succeeded his father at the age of eighteen. In the subsequent twelve years he proved himself utterly incapable of ruling, and ended the way of so many failed Emperors--with a sword in his guts.

There then followed a period of more than a century in which no Emperor reigned longer than fifteen years, most less than two, almost all dying at the hands of assassins, during which time the Empire was invaded, impoverished and brought to the edge of ruin. The Emperor Diocletian attempted to circumvent the principle of hereditary succession by establishing the Tetrarchy, in which the senior emperor, the Augustus, selected a colleague to serve with him as Augustus. Each Augustus then selected a junior colleague to serve as Caesar, there being then four Emperors--two Augusti and two Caesari. But the entire system broke down within a year of Diocletian's retirement, because hereditary succession could not be avoided. There then followed about twenty years of civil war, after which Constantine was last man standing and sole emperor. He attempted to have his three surviving sons rule jointly, but within a couple of years, Constantine II and Constans were toast, and Constantius was last man standing. Needless to say, neither the Roman Empire nor its Byzantine successor ever found a solution to the problem of succession.

But in the Medieval period, when Monarchies had been established for Centuries, this didn’t happen and the Transition between the Old King to his Heir was usually far more Peaceful.

Your argument that only a short period from 97 AD to 180 AD lived up to the Ideal expectation is thus wrong.

We can also point to the success of the Chinese Emperors, or the Japanese Emperor who only lost his Powers after WW2 and still sits on his Throne as a Limited Cultural Monarch.

One can say the Japanese Emperors alone proved the success of the System, if not overwhelmed by a greater invading Power.

In England most Monarchs ascended the Tine without any Civil War breaking out or killing being Rampant, too. While we can look at the Tudor Dynasty or the English Civil War, those don’t represent the whole of the History of the English Monarchy.

I can’t recall the United Kingdom after 1701 having any succession Crises that lead to war.

The French Monarchy really didn’t have that many Problems either. Yes there were occasional Succession Crisis but most of the time there as peaceful Transition, and the Throne descended from Charlemagne.


The Roman Empire also had a drawback of not being a fully developed Monarchy at the time. Keep in mind they had formerly been a Republic, and even the elevation of Caesar was not to the Throne of Emperor, but o the position of Dictator for Life. The term Dictator had no Negative Connotations to them.

The Troubles in the Roman System were developed precisely because there was no succession Law and no clear understanding of how the Emperors should be selected, and because it was a Tie of Transition between an Ill defined Republic to an Ill Defined Empire.

Republicanism wouldn’t work as we practice it today if no Written constitution existed. If we just had a Vague notion of elected officials with two Houses being set up and a President, but no clear, defined powers for any of them, then the President may grow in power massively, or the Senate oppose him, and kill him if he tries too hard.

Had America never written the Constitution of the United States, and left it like Rome, with an Organic Government that was Malleable and changeable by mere Statute, then America would likely have collapsed into bloody Civil War with Presidents Routinely assassinated within a century of its Founding.

The example from the Roman Empire is thus actually an argument for Monarchy, as the UK has no Written Constitution and until people began to demand greater Democracy, the System worked well on precedent, Tradition, and Veneration of the Crown.

It can also be seen as an Argument for clear Laws and defined practices, and perhaps even Constitutionalism.

But it is not a good argument against Monarchy or for Republicanism, as the Republic of Rome was in disarray and blatantly corrupt prior to the Emperors, and the Assassination of Senators wasn’t exactly uncommon.


Quote
As for monarchies being immune from special interests, please, don't be naive. In addition to favoring one economic or geographic interest over another, monarchs are notorious for having personal favorites (look up "Piers Gaveston", for instance), on whom the shower all sorts of offices and perquisites, usually to the detriment of the kingdom. Kings are just as influenced by special interests as any other politician--they just aren't as accountable.




The “Usually to the Detriment of the Kingdom” line is not True. Most of the Time, a Kings Favourites did not really harm the Nation long term. In fact, they seldom did any harm to the Nation really.

I said Usually, so don’t show examples of where they did. It’d have to be shown that they usually did.

That said, this is still not the same as Special Interest as seen today. A Modern Special Interest group has power precisely because they command a Voting Block or large sums of Money that a Political Party or Individual Politician can then use to secure his position, but must do so in exchange for helping Said interest. This make shim beholden to them, and thus is corruptive.


A King who owes his position to Heredity can’t be plied by such promises and can’t be compromised by them.

As for him being unaccountable, again read your History. Kings often are answerable to their Lords and to Parliaments.

Monarchy need not be seen as unaccountable Government, just as a Republic like the Soviet Union proves a Republic can exist that is not accountable. And spare me the usual drivel of how the USSR was not a Real Republic, it was. It just wasn’t a nice one.


Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 1
E
Za myr z'wysot ...
Member
Offline
Za myr z'wysot ...
Member
E
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by ZAROVE
... I never meant to convey that I thought a Monarch would be Sinless or that many men are Sinless, I know all men will sin. My point is that power does not intrinsically make one a Sinner where one was previosuly a Saint.

In other words, I don't think Power is in itself corruptive.
Zarove,

The key to this dilemma can be answered in one word--temptation. The person with more power will necessarily have more opportunities to abuse their power than the person with less, and increased opportunity brings an increased likelihood that one or more of those choices will look attractive.

David, King of Israel was a good example of this--a godly man who was often overcome by the temptations that his position afforded him.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Epiphanius, I concur. I just think that the adage of Power Corrupting is misguided in that there is nothing intrinsic to Power alone that causes us to Sin. We sin anyway. Power just supplies a mean to sin and since of both availability and means to cover it up or bulldoze over complications.


Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405
I don't care for either democracy or monarchy. Rule by "the people" or rule by one man can equally go wrong. The only solution is the separation of powers within a constitutional monarchy/republic. As such, both the United States and the United Kingdom are working as well as can be expected (no human institutions are perfect anyway).

Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  Irish Melkite, theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5