Monday, January 19, 2015

Monarchies and the Holy See

I believe, even as a non-Catholic, that the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church has the authority, if he chooses to do so, to resolve, at least for Catholics, hitherto disputed successions in monarchies that are or once were Catholic. He does not, however, have the authority to endorse the replacement of a Catholic Monarchy with a Republic, for such a development is intrinsically Evil and can never be approved under any circumstances.

Therefore, all non-sedevacantist Catholics must recognize Felipe VI as the legitimate King of Spain and Elizabeth II as the legitimate Queen of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Realms, since the Vatican does, regardless of what they think about the events of previous centuries. No dispute is justifiable. "Carlism" or "Jacobitism" that does not have the blessing of the Holy See has no reason to continue. But Catholics have absolutely no obligation whatsoever to obey Leo XIII and accept the French Republic or any other republic occupying the territory of what was once a Catholic Monarchy, just because the Vatican now also has diplomatic relations with those republics.

6 comments:

Aaron Traas said...

Interesting. I'd say that he only has that authority in Catholic monarchies that traditionally or currently recognize said authority. I can't see why he'd have such authority in a protestant nation like the UK. Though you know I'm not a Jacobite, because Jacobitism is... silly in this day and age, but if the British crown doesn't recognize the pope in having that authority, then I don't see how he has jurisdiction. From the Church's point of view, the UK is not part of Catholic Christendom.

Pair O' Dimes said...

The blogger of the "Roman Christendom" blog (http://romanchristendom.blogspot.com) said something that makes sense. If the de facto government becomes the only alternative likely to see power, then for as long as that is the case, it is to be regarded as the de jure government--because to oppose it without an alternative that is clearly more legitimate and likely to regain power with enough support is mere anarchy, which is never to be tolerated.

That being said, however, I agree with you that if a nation was founded as a monarchy, that ought to be respected, especially if a republic was founded by revolution, against the will of the last monarch to rule de facto, making that republic illegitimate. My only real concern is Catholic-Church approved prophecy, which suggests that the French monarchy will be restored by God, likely within a generation--but does that mean that man-made attempts in that direction at this time are futile, unlikely to restore the monarchy and hence more akin to the anarchy mentioned above?

And what of a nation that was founded as a republic? I honestly think a monarchy is the best form of government, and has a better chance of working the larger the government is, so that I wouldn't oppose a monarchy replacing the republican government if it was likely to succeed, especially if it came to power peacefully and legally within the republic, or at least didn't come to power by way of revolt and coup d'etat.

It seems to me that the tradition in the USA was rejected by the War Between the States: expansion of suffrage is getting further away from the situation in a non-constitutional monarchy, and is therefore, from a monarchist perspective, worse. Plus, if we have universal suffrage, where lies sovereignty, and so where lies American patriotism (and therefore American treason)? The United States Constitution defines treason as warring against the States or aiding and abetting their enemies--but does that apply to a federal government warring against its own member States? If so, how would that be enforced?

Theodore Harvey said...

That's why I said "at least for Catholics." Catholics in doubt as to whether a current monarch is legitimate need only ask whether their Pope recognizes him or her.

This post came about because I was fed up with a certain Catholic Facebook Friend who continues to deny the legitimacy of King Felipe VI and Queen Elizabeth II despite firmly accepting that of Pope Francis, which I think is incoherent. Whatever one thinks of the sedevacantists, I think they have a stronger case than 21st-century Bourbon-Parma Carlists and Wittelsbach Jacobites.

Pair O' Dimes said...

Mr. Harvey: I know you're not Catholic, and I don't know what you mean, but sedevacantists just plain aren't Catholic.

If they're right, it should be both possible and pressingly urgent for the sedevacantist bishops to hold an ecumenical council invoking the Holy Spirit to make their fallible claim (Vatican II being a robber council, all Vatican II Popes being impostors) infallible.

They haven't done that in decades, so either they've chosen not to or they're being stopped. If they've chosen not to, do they really care about our souls? And why then make the claim fallibly? If they're being stopped, either Satan and his minions are stopping him, or the Holy Spirit Himself is. If it's Satan and his minions, why fear them when God is infinitely more powerful and opposed to them? If it's the Holy Spirit, sedevacantism is wrong.

One thing I've concluded about the faith is that persons come even before dogma: we have a Pope, they do not. There isn't even another Papal line or means by which to elect one.

Theodore Harvey said...

I really didn't intend to get into the sedevacantist issue itself. All I meant was that if a Catholic recognises Pope Francis and his recent predecessors, he must also recognise Elizabeth II and Felipe VI since the Vatican obviously does.

Pair O' Dimes said...

I understand, and I won't say anything more on the matter. It was really more for the benefit of other people reading these comments. I mostly said your name in case someone else got a comment in sooner, so people would know it was in response to what you said.

For what it's worth, I do recognize both Queen Elizabeth II and King Felipe VI.