I think it's ok
I think it's NOT ok
I don't know
Heathen religion is a folkish religion,
in consequence the politics of a folkish heathen can only be folkish.
By contrast a universalist heathen will be more prone to embrace multiculturalism politically too,
like the presence of immigrants.
My answer should be obvious.
Politics and religion can't be separated no matter how much we'd want.
I'm think our politics should be molded according to our folkish religion.
„Friend of Germanics”
The only way church and state mixing together is wrong, is when the executive figure overrides the will of the people, as Olaf did in Norway. Kings observing the faith is good and recusing themselves is fine, but violence against the faith of the people is violence against their ancestors, thus justly may such a king himself end up beheaded for treason or rebellion. A king who is neutral or indifferent may simply be weak and lack much of a mandate, without spiritual unity.
What if a sizeable portion of your people go dangerously nutty, like the Cathars?Originally Posted by Rodskarl Dubhgall
„Friend of Germanics”
Raymond of Toulouse and the Albigensians were just in the way of French and Papal expansions, hence the diarchy of Andorra and Urgell along with the Dauphin and Avignon condominium, built off of previous examples of First Daughter and Holy Mother Church conspiring to scratch each other's backs at the expenses of competition. France wanted to expand in all directions, especially to reclaim Italy from Germany, but was hemmed in by the Normans, Visigoths and Burgundians.
The Papacy sought Ultramontanist control through sub-theocracies within the hierarchy, while barely master of Rome. Perfect pretext to destroy those who wouldn't roll over and play dead. I support the Cathars and the Waldensians, who were supporters of the Iron Crown against Papal overreach in Lombardy. Simple vilification and reductio ad absurdam isn't enough to discount more substantial issues some would rather you ignore, for their own aggrandizement.
Unlike elitists, I trust soul liberty of the common man and yet monarchy has its uses other than questioning the will of the people, by owing its place to them. Prelacy is too often causing problems by slumlord absenteeism, but having the nerve to blame those practically left to their own devices. Maybe the charade is the problem, of outsourcing everything meaningful to you to those who scorn your natural, everyday existence. That's what happens when you speak one language and a hireling priesthood speaks another.
There's more to it than that. And Papal expansion? Aquitaine and all the land to the north and the south were already firmly within the Papal sphere of influence. Raymond of Toulouse was a Catholic ruler who had to reconcile different interests, those of the local population with those of Rome and his own.
Que?The Papacy sought Ultramontanist control through sub-theocracies within the hierarchy, while barely master of Rome.
You're supporting them in 2020 and not as a Christian either, it's more because you carry a common grudge against the Vatican for wildly different reasons. Cathars/Waldensians very much disagree with your world view. You can't draft 'em.I support the Cathars and the Waldensians, who were supporters of the Iron Crown against Papal overreach in Lombardy.
I support the Catholic Church in rooting out this dangerous heresy which was at its core never Christian. And what would Europe be today if Europeans had believed the material world & procreation to be evil in the last 800 years? A dump. Backward like Nepal, poor like Africa.
Cathars were elitists. You weren't truly part of the religion prior to receiving the Consolamentum, upon which gnostic knowledge would've been imparted to you. And having received the Consolamentum, many a Cathar performed ritual suicide out of fear of ever sinning again...Unlike elitists, I trust soul liberty of the common man and yet monarchy has its uses other than questioning the will of the people, by owing its place to them.
I could've added this comment in any thread in which you declare your love for monarchism and historical monarchs, but Christian kingship presupposes fulfilling one's Christian obligations - that's why for instance constitutional monarchy is completely unacceptable from a traditionalist point of view. The moment a Christian monarch puts his signature underneath unchristian laws, they lose legitimacy. If they're Catholic, the Pope must excommunicate them.
As an aside: undiluted Catholic monarchism is by definition not regalist or centralist, but distributist and (con)federal. Contrary to what centuries of Protestant propaganda have led the Anglosphere to believe. Yet Protestants themselves have only known regalism and all-encompasing bureaucracies.
Meanwhile, the most autocratic of the French kings, Louis XIV, and his civil servants spoke to their subjects in a friendly and father-like manner, and with the utmost courtesy. "None of the "First and Final Notice", or "Take Notice That ... ", or again, "You are hereby directed to... " and so forth, in the bureaucratic manner familiar to all of us. The subjects were addressed as "My Dear... ", and they were "requested to be so kind as to ...", because "I would be extremely grateful if you would kindly consider this matter", and the closing sentence from the Governor, the Magistrate, or the Landlord, was to draw "the blessing of God upon you and your family"! All the documents were in the same vein; they were written from person to person, not from a nameless and faceless bureaucracy to an equally nameless and faceless mass of "citizens". Such was the tone. As regards the contents, the documents in question made it obvious that the powers of the "Law" were limited. There was no threat of penalty "for failure to comply", no "$200 fine or 3 months in jail" as we currently see in most official documents. Virtually everybody in our "democratic" days is periodically threatened with "3 months in jail" through the bureaucratic printed matter we all receive." - Yves Dupont
"Rather than a plenary authority, subjugating all to the royal will, medieval kings tended to have a limited authority as heads of a rich network of social institutions, each with their own domain, authority, and dignity. There was of course the Church, but also the guilds, the towns, barons great and small, universities, and associations of all sorts. The king's writ might run as law, but there was very little he could actually write in his writ, given the plurality of powers that surrounded him. People were conscious of their rights and privileges, and willing to fight for them, as Richard II of England discovered when he tried to impose a poll tax (essentially, an income tax) on the people, and found that within a few weeks a vast peasant army swept through the kingdom to capture both London and the king. Treachery got Richard out of his difficulties, but he was made very aware of the limitations to his power. In fact, a modern bureaucrat, in the normal course of his day, exercises more power than a medieval king; the bureaucrat can, with a stroke of a pen, take away your business or your children, thereby making tyranny a sort of daily routine; the bureaucrat's writ does indeed run as law, as long as the proper forms are filled out.I dwell on the problems of regalism because it is this version of “monarchy” which is most familiar to the general public. Whatever the faults of the American Founders, this was the kind of monarchy that justified the revolution. The same principle that was applied in the last article to democracy also applies to monarchy. That is, a thing without proper limits becomes its own opposite, and benevolence quickly becomes a tyranny which threatens both civil and religious order. But Catholics can look to a wider tradition to meditate on these matters; we need not confine our meditations on monarchy to King George III, or even to King Louis XVI, Catholic as he may have been." - John Médaille
"Accordingly, the best form of government is in a state or kingdom, wherein one is given the power to preside over all; while under him are others having governing powers: and yet a government of this kind is shared by all, both because all are eligible to govern, and because the rules are chosen by all. For this is the best form of polity, being partly kingdom, since there is one at the head of all; partly aristocracy, in so far as a number of persons are set to authority; partly democracy, i.e., government by the people, in so far as the rulers can be chosen from the people and the people have the right to choose their leaders." - St. Thomas
"What is the purpose of the monarchy?” St. Thomas defines this as giving a unity to the people in order to direct all to the common good, which is a “unity of peace” and a concern for justice. “Peace” in this context means much more than just the absence of war. Rather, it is an internal harmony in the kingdom that directs all levels to justice, for “Everything is uncertain when there is a departure from justice”.[note]De Regno, 26.[/note] Politics tends to be divisive by its very nature; even when people attempt to act for the common good, they also tend to interpret that good according to their own needs and desires. Some principle in government needs to have the possibility of interpreting the common good from the standpoint of the whole society, a good which encompasses all, from the lowest to the highest.However, the term “common good,” standing by itself, tends to be rather vague and needs some development before it can be useful. The Catholic Church has developed two further principles in guiding rulers to the common good. These principles are not mere abstractions, not the result of isolated philosophers and theologians dictating what they think is good for society. Rather, they are the result of the Church's reflection on its 2,000 years of experience with governments of all sorts. These principles are subsidiarity and solidarity. Subsidiarity is a principle which stands the political hierarchy on its head; it states that the higher levels of government exist only to serve the lowest. A higher level of authority can be justified only by the aid (subsidium) it gives to the lower level, and especially to the lowest unit of society, the family. The royal family, the first family of the kingdom, is in a sense the last family, and the king, who is the greatest of all, must become the servant of all, in the same way that the pope is the servus servorum dei, “the servant of the servants of God.”Solidarity is the principle which requires that every action of government must be evaluated on the basis of how it affects the poorest citizens, and if it harms this group, it is likely not a just action to begin with. Its signature is a “preferential option for the poor,” and it forms a kind of acid test for the common good.Note that Thomas does not give specific duties or authorities for each element of government. And that is proper, because the actual distribution of authority is not something derived from the natural law. Rather, it is a prudential judgment that changes from culture to culture, and with time and circumstance. For the character of peoples and nations vary, and the needs of the times change with the times; therefore their particular institutions must evolve from their own experiences and needs. Nevertheless, there are some general principles that we might advance, though they might be modified to fit any particular political tradition.Concerning the king, he needs to have real authority, an authority that extends to the executive, legislative, and judicial functions. Of course, he should not be the only authority in these areas, nor even necessarily the ordinary authority; but he should, in some sense, be the ultimate authority. The king's government also needs to have its own revenue stream, one fixed in the constitution and independent of any legislative body. A king who has to beg his bread from the legislature is no king, and whoever holds the power of the purse will soon hold all other powers. The legislature may by its own will supplement the constitutional revenues, perhaps to pay for a war or some other extraordinary expense, and they may control the funds they levy. But for the budgeting of the constitutional revenue, the king should be primary, or even the sole, authority. Other authorities may comment, they may even censure a king, such as when a king neglects the defense of the realm to build himself palaces. But in the practical world, control of the budget is control of everything else. The king should also hold an absolute veto over both the legislature and the judicial functions. And finally, there needs to be a difficult but peaceful means of removing a king; without this, kings themselves become the cause of revolutions." - John Médaille
Such as the Cathars.Maybe the charade is the problem, of outsourcing everything meaningful to you to those who scorn your natural, everyday existence.
Great things happen. Make Holy Mass completely Latin again. For one, it will ensure priests, most of whom do not excel at theological matters, are unable to espouse heretical ideas and dabble in liberalism and communism in front of the faithful.That's what happens when you speak one language and a hireling priesthood speaks another.
"Our country is ourselves. It is our villages, our altars, our graves, all that our fathers loved before us. Our country is our Faith, our land, our King. . . But their country — what is it? Do you understand? Do you? . . . They have it in their brains; we have it under our feet. . ." - François-Athanase Charette
„Friend of Germanics”
Is it too much to ask for letting people be and not coming over to impose where it's unwanted? That's all I advocated, other than the Germanic popular monarchies of the Völkerwanderung, not those pushed upon the people by Grima Wormtongue Latin priests. I know, such a strange concept that self-government be accepted. The Avignon Antipopes wouldn't have been a problem had they not commissioned the Albigensian Crusade and moved in once they murdered all those people who were in their way to add more Papal States than the original basic Exarchate of Ravenna and make the Viennois a tool for the King to control Occitanie.
Toulouse was part of Visigothic Aquitaine and Aquitaine was Angevin, united with Normandy in competition with or at least cooperating to ensure that the King of France respect federalism and not annex all the provinces for himself and his family. Squeezing everyone is what caused the 100 Years' War and even the civil war with Burgundy, because the King was jealous and wouldn't even tolerate the freedom of another Salic dynast actually expanding at the Empire's expense as something he could not do himself, but the Kingdom of Burgundy could have been reunited and even Lorraine won for French interests had he not interfered.
I don't believe that politics and religion should mix. Faith is a personal matter and these days we have a plurality of faiths: heathen, Christian, atheist, Buddhist/Zen, agnostic, etc. Even within the "same" faith, e.g. Germanic heathens, not everyone shares the same beliefs. Christians too have different denominations and so on.
You don't always advocate that though.
Most Occitans were still Catholic, while the Cathars were inspired by Bogomil preachers from the Balkans. A single radical Balkanite preacher is responsible for the break down in negotiations between the R.C.C. and the Cathar church. Which led to the first crusade in the region. Maybe he should've stayed out of other people's affairs?
"Our country is ourselves. It is our villages, our altars, our graves, all that our fathers loved before us. Our country is our Faith, our land, our King. . . But their country — what is it? Do you understand? Do you? . . . They have it in their brains; we have it under our feet. . ." - François-Athanase Charette
That will only work as long as religion is either not part of the social structure, i.e. that there is a strong secular society that imposes order and structure, or as long as the majority "understand" that religion is meaningless hocus pocus.
Every society must have a moral compass, where ever it points. On this forum it seems to be blood and soil.
„Friend of Germanics”
Huguenot strength and density throughout the realm largely echoed Cathar precedence. Therefore, it's true at least in retrospect, that the centralizing policies of Paris and Rome were unwelcome in the long run and the fact that locals found greater resonance from a neutral party far afield speaks to their desperate straits with regard to the Ultramontanist arrangements upheld by the Isle of France, to the preferment of impositions at the expense of all others--Normans, Bretons, Burgundians and Navarrese. This was a common struggle between the Metropolis and the provinces perhaps going back to the days of Syagrius and adopted by Clovis and his heirs, but a tradition of annihilating opposition only emits apologetics about one faction rather than coexistence if all are supposedly on the same page as you claimed to have been.
We all know the price of opposition to Jacobinism was the guillotine and its practice hardly deviated from the typical dehumanization of the populace outside the halls of power (considering the Catholic League and Wars of Religion, even the assassination of Henry IV), in which the French employed double standards about Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. The French have never cared about that for those native to Gaul and the whole of Europe other than themselves, but have since bestowed upon noble savages (like such half breeds as Alexander Dumas) their special favors instead. So, a long line of hypocrisy and with the Vatican having first supplied the whispers of immunity down the ages from which to strike at everyone else in a comparable fashion to Israel, that Papal (e.g. high priest) favor excused all, even beyond the disestablishment of Ultramontanism.
Bonaparte seizing the Iron Crown out of the Pope's hands only proved that their will to power rested on Jewish ritual, but in a Roman masquerade, of course. Real life Dan Brown Da Vinci Code nonsense. I don't care for it even while admitting my descent from the Merovingian and Carolingian kings. I don't think that "Deus Vult" is a good rationale for dealing with one's blood or neighbor, but am willing to excuse or ignore it with objectively foreign animosities that weren't in play. Moors and Saracens weren't being dealt with in any of those scenarios and just because of Tours, doesn't mean that they had all justification for poor behaviors over the many centuries: That's rather unbecoming a civil society and unworthy of such a past glory to rest one's laurels upon, but they think the whole world is in their hands to refashion in their image as a junior Israel, just with Jesus and not only Moses to back them up.
England
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks