I belong to a Facebook group dedicated to the counter revolution. It is basically a monarchist group, with a predominantly Catholic membership, many of whom are Traditionalist. Recently someone created a poll with four choices, 'Do you prefer, 1) Absolute Monarchy, 2) Constitutional Monarchy (executive), 3) Other, 4) Constitutional Monarchy (ceremonial)?'
I have been amazed at the results. A large majority of the membership has opted for Absolute Monarchy. Why am I surprised? Because the concept of absolute monarchy is a pagan concept, rooted in the Roman Imperial idea that the monarch is the sole source of law. It had been totally forgotten in the Catholic Kingdoms of the Middle Ages since the Roman Law had been lost, only being rediscovered in the 11th century.
By then, the Office of Kingship had organically developed into what I'm sure the creator of the poll would consider Constitutional Monarchy (executive). The power of the King was hedged round by the Church, the Liberties of free men and the Corporations, which included cities, universities, guilds, etc.
As an example, in Magna Carta of 1215 in its very first article, King John says, 'FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. (This article was obviously violated by the heresiarch Henry VIII in his striving for absolutism.) In the second article, he says, 'TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:', followed by a lengthy list of what the king cannot do. In the 13th article, King John stated, 'The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs.'
Far from the king being absolute and the source of law, the mediæval king was rex sub lege, a 'king under the law'. In fact, St Thomas Aquinas wrote a treatise on monarchy, titled De regno, ad regem Cypri in which he explains that a monarchy, with some limitations set by an aristocracy and democratic elements, was the best and most just form of government. He also emphasised the monarch's duty to uphold the divine and natural law and abide by limitations imposed on the monarch by custom and existing law. He taught that kings are God's representatives in their territories. But the church, represented by the popes, is above the king in matters of doctrine and morality. As a consequence, the kings and other worldly rulers are obliged to adapt their laws to the Catholic church's doctrines and ethics, which of course the theorists of absolute monarchy implicitly deny.
The concept of absolute monarchy or the divine right of kings, 'kicked around' for quite awhile, after the Reception of Roman Law, some kings trying to establish absolutism, but being successfully resisted. It wasn't until the Renaissance and the Protestant Deformation that the concept got traction. Renaissance Humanism with its return to Classical sources soon lent its hand to the protestant princes who wanted to control the Church in their realms.
In fact, one of the earliest theorists of a complete theory of absolute monarchy or the divine right of kings was the Calvinist James VI&I of Scotland and England in his works, 'The Trve Lawe of free Monarchies: Or, The Reciprock and Mvtvall Dvtie Betwixt a free King, and his naturall Subiectes' and 'Basilikon Doron'.
When it was taken up by the Catholic Kings of France, it led inexorably to the heresy of Gallicanism, which made its own the heresy of Conciliarism. The Church resisted French absolutism vigourously, but it held on tenuously until the Revolution destroyed the monarchy.
In conclusion I am amazed at the number of Catholics who hold a pagan/protestant political philosophy which inevitably leads to heresy.
I have been amazed at the results. A large majority of the membership has opted for Absolute Monarchy. Why am I surprised? Because the concept of absolute monarchy is a pagan concept, rooted in the Roman Imperial idea that the monarch is the sole source of law. It had been totally forgotten in the Catholic Kingdoms of the Middle Ages since the Roman Law had been lost, only being rediscovered in the 11th century.
By then, the Office of Kingship had organically developed into what I'm sure the creator of the poll would consider Constitutional Monarchy (executive). The power of the King was hedged round by the Church, the Liberties of free men and the Corporations, which included cities, universities, guilds, etc.
As an example, in Magna Carta of 1215 in its very first article, King John says, 'FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. (This article was obviously violated by the heresiarch Henry VIII in his striving for absolutism.) In the second article, he says, 'TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:', followed by a lengthy list of what the king cannot do. In the 13th article, King John stated, 'The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs.'
Far from the king being absolute and the source of law, the mediæval king was rex sub lege, a 'king under the law'. In fact, St Thomas Aquinas wrote a treatise on monarchy, titled De regno, ad regem Cypri in which he explains that a monarchy, with some limitations set by an aristocracy and democratic elements, was the best and most just form of government. He also emphasised the monarch's duty to uphold the divine and natural law and abide by limitations imposed on the monarch by custom and existing law. He taught that kings are God's representatives in their territories. But the church, represented by the popes, is above the king in matters of doctrine and morality. As a consequence, the kings and other worldly rulers are obliged to adapt their laws to the Catholic church's doctrines and ethics, which of course the theorists of absolute monarchy implicitly deny.
The concept of absolute monarchy or the divine right of kings, 'kicked around' for quite awhile, after the Reception of Roman Law, some kings trying to establish absolutism, but being successfully resisted. It wasn't until the Renaissance and the Protestant Deformation that the concept got traction. Renaissance Humanism with its return to Classical sources soon lent its hand to the protestant princes who wanted to control the Church in their realms.
In fact, one of the earliest theorists of a complete theory of absolute monarchy or the divine right of kings was the Calvinist James VI&I of Scotland and England in his works, 'The Trve Lawe of free Monarchies: Or, The Reciprock and Mvtvall Dvtie Betwixt a free King, and his naturall Subiectes' and 'Basilikon Doron'.
When it was taken up by the Catholic Kings of France, it led inexorably to the heresy of Gallicanism, which made its own the heresy of Conciliarism. The Church resisted French absolutism vigourously, but it held on tenuously until the Revolution destroyed the monarchy.
In conclusion I am amazed at the number of Catholics who hold a pagan/protestant political philosophy which inevitably leads to heresy.
In response to my post Constitutional vs Absolute Monarchy, a member of the Facebook group made the following comment,
I think the issue here is one of definitions. I voted for absolute monarchy, believing that to mean that the authority of the King came from God and not from a Constitution (which implies, at least in my mind, that the authority of the King comes from some social contract and therefore from the consent of those who are to be governed by the King himself). I did not mean, by absolutism, the Gallican Kings nor the Kingship of James VI/I.The difference between constitutional monarchy, as I define it, and constitutional monarchy as my commenter seems to define it, is starkly shown by the openings of the Charter of 1814, under which the last Legitimate Kings of France ruled, and that of 1830, under which the Freemasonic, usurping, Revolutionary (only) 'King of the French' ruled.
From the Charter of 1814 (my emphasis)
Louis, by the grace of God, King of France and Navarre, to all those to whom these presents come, greeting.
Assured of our intentions, and strengthened by our conscience, we pledge ourselves, in the presence of the assembly which hears us, to be faithful to this constitutional charter, reserving to ourselves to swear to maintain it with a new solemnity, before the altars of Him who weighs in the same balance kings and nations.
For these reasons, We have voluntarily, and by the free exercise of our royal authority, accorded and do accord, grant and concede to our subjects, as well for us as for our successors forever, the constitutional charter which follows:The Monarchy under the Charter of 1814 has been defined as a constitutional monarchy but not a parliamentary one.
From the Charter of 1830 (my emphasis)
Louis Philippe, King of the French, to all present and to come, greeting.
We have ordered and do order that the Constitutional Charter of 1814, such as it has been amended by the two Chambers on August 7th and accepted by us on the 9th, shall be again published in the following terms:
Notice, in the second there is no mention of God, tho' I will admit that his full title was, 'By the Grace of God and by the Constitutional Law of the State, King of the French'. It seems God had to share the power with the 'Constitutional Law of the State'!
It is also instructive that whilst the usurper began his 'reign' using his personal Arms which were those of France differenced with the label of a cadet House:
less than a year later, the arms were changed to honour the Constitution:
However, to my commenter's remark, 'I did not mean, by absolutism, the Gallican Kings nor the Kingship of James VI/I', the problem is that kings, like all men, are fallen creatures, not angels. A man, even if he is a king, given absolute power in the state, will attempt to bring all things under his control, including the Church. And no monarch can rule without at least the implied consent of his people, whether expressed in 'constitutional form' or not.
Chevalier Charles Coulombe's thoughts on the subject bear out what I mean, especially on the limitations of the King in mediæval Europe.
I am reminded of the exchange between Frodo and Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings when Frodo offers the One Ring to the Wizard.
Ergo, I believe that is inevitable if a King is not a 'constitutional monarch' in the sense of being 'rex sub lege' as the concept developed in the High Ages of Faith, and as the Angelic Doctor defined it, then mixed government will rapidly descend into tyranny.
Chevalier Henry Sire, SMOM (suspended), in his book Phoenix From the Ashes, an absolute must read for any counter-revolutionary integrist, (standard notice, if you buy from this link, I make a small commission at no additional cost to you), discusses the Enlightened Despots of the 18th century, who were the natural evolution of the Absolute Kings of the 17th.
He discusses at some length the suppression of the Jesuits, beginning in Portugal. These were not the Jesuits of today, modernists who've never met a revolution they didn't like. The Jesuits of the 18th century were solidly orthodox and taught the Thomistic theory of government I discussed in my earlier post on this topic. This made them the deadly enemy of the absolutists and their ministers who were wedded to the pagan/protestant concept of absolute rule.
In speaking of Joseph I of Portugal, he says,
It is also instructive that whilst the usurper began his 'reign' using his personal Arms which were those of France differenced with the label of a cadet House:
Could it be that his personal arms were a reminder that he was a usurper and not the Legitimate King? Hence, since his power rested only weakly on the permissive will of God, but primarily on the Constitution, he wanted to de-emphasise his usurpation and emphasise his 'constitutional claim' to the Throne.
However, to my commenter's remark, 'I did not mean, by absolutism, the Gallican Kings nor the Kingship of James VI/I', the problem is that kings, like all men, are fallen creatures, not angels. A man, even if he is a king, given absolute power in the state, will attempt to bring all things under his control, including the Church. And no monarch can rule without at least the implied consent of his people, whether expressed in 'constitutional form' or not.
Chevalier Charles Coulombe's thoughts on the subject bear out what I mean, especially on the limitations of the King in mediæval Europe.
'Will you not take the Ring?'
'No!' cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. 'With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly.' His eyes flashed and his face was lit as by a fire within. 'Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great, for my strength. I shall have such need of it. Great perils lie before me.'Or, in the words of a Catholic statesman, albeit a Liberal, John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton, 'Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'
Ergo, I believe that is inevitable if a King is not a 'constitutional monarch' in the sense of being 'rex sub lege' as the concept developed in the High Ages of Faith, and as the Angelic Doctor defined it, then mixed government will rapidly descend into tyranny.
Chevalier Henry Sire, SMOM (suspended), in his book Phoenix From the Ashes, an absolute must read for any counter-revolutionary integrist, (standard notice, if you buy from this link, I make a small commission at no additional cost to you), discusses the Enlightened Despots of the 18th century, who were the natural evolution of the Absolute Kings of the 17th.
He discusses at some length the suppression of the Jesuits, beginning in Portugal. These were not the Jesuits of today, modernists who've never met a revolution they didn't like. The Jesuits of the 18th century were solidly orthodox and taught the Thomistic theory of government I discussed in my earlier post on this topic. This made them the deadly enemy of the absolutists and their ministers who were wedded to the pagan/protestant concept of absolute rule.
In speaking of Joseph I of Portugal, he says,
In 1758 an attempt made on the king’s life enabled Pombal (the Marquis de Pombal, Joseph's Prime Minister) to perfect his ascendancy. Quickly executing the hired killers, he used their alleged confessions to proceed against his political enemy, the marquis of Tavora, representative of one of the great noble families in Portugal. He, his wife, two sons, and a son-in-law were tortured and put to death by breaking on the wheel, and the marchioness’s Jesuit confessor was burnt alive. After Pombal’s fall and the release of his political prisoners, an enquiry into these proceedings denounced them for the crimes that they were.
Sire, H.J.A., Phoenix from the Ashes: The Making, Unmaking, and Restoration of Catholic Tradition (p. 119). Angelico Press. Kindle Edition.Breaking on the wheel and burning people alive? But I thought that was mediæval? Pombal was an estrangeirado, an intellectual determined to introduce the ideas of the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment into Portugal. This is pagan/protestant heresy! This is absolute monarchy! And this is what the Church has opposed throughout history.
Pictured at top: The Arms of St Louis IX, the epitome of a truly constitutional monarch.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are subject to deletion if they are not germane. I have no problem with a bit of colourful language, but blasphemy or depraved profanity will not be allowed. Attacks on the Catholic Faith will not be tolerated. Comments will be deleted that are republican (Yanks! Note the lower case 'r'!), attacks on the legitimacy of Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ (I know he's a material heretic and a Protector of Perverts, and I definitely want him gone yesterday! However, he is Pope, and I pray for him every day.), the legitimacy of the House of Windsor or of the claims of the Elder Line of the House of France, or attacks on the legitimacy of any of the currently ruling Houses of Europe.