Durendal

Does anyone have the full text of Pourquoi Notre Voix?

A representative Republic. For those that say a monarchy...just picture Obama as King.

At least we can get rid of O man in 3 more years.

Isn't that the same as democracy?

Would he be any worse than Herod?

Obama isn't even aristocracy. And in any case, he would be opposed in a Catholic monarchy by guilds and the people.

As for representative republics, I had more than enough of it. The United States, sure, is not as bad as Europe, but that makes it worse because people are mostly unaware of the worse things going on other than the obvious ones, like more costs due to the health care bill.

In a monarchy the power is sealed off and shut. It's no longer up for grabs. A person has to destroy the whole goverment in order to usurp power which is why the Freemasons did just that.


:mega:
Muerte la Republica!
Viva Cristo Rey!

Every people get the government that they deserve. If you feel that a monarchy is what you want to live under, find a king and be my guest. I wish you and yours well.
You did not put a democratic republic in your poll, so I checked democracy as the next best choice. We must have some form of government, or else it would be survival of the strongest, sneakiest, and meanest. Unacceptable.
However, I refuse to be governed by some one whose only qualification is that he/she was born into a "royal" family. I am a citizen, not a subject.
The only Master that I have, or will have, died for me, and is my God. To Him will I bend my knee and bow my head, not to any mortal.
Perhaps I got my views about being ruled from my blood-my family comes from Switzerland. Or perhaps I learned them from my childhood education in the US and my time serving in the military.
Where ever they came from, that's what they are. I think that this thread might become interesting. I will follow it to see where it goes.

:) :) :)

I kind of thought that was tautological, though on reflection, it occurs to me that the UK is democratic and a monarchy!

God invented the idea of a hereditary monarchy. King David and all that!

:)

The greatest check to the expansion of Freemasonry and liberalism was monarchies, particularly the Holy Roman Empire, France's, and Spain's. Once they were gone, the world plunged into deeper errors. There is no better defence of monarchy than this!

Nope, a true Democracy would be the citizens voting on everything. We would not have Congress or a President. Well, maybe a President...but in order to do anything, it would require a vote by every citizen. This would be very ineffective in a country the size of the USA. Some small towns still do have true democracies for town matters.

As for Obama and Herod, like I said, at least we can get rid of Obama in 4 years.

Get rid of Obama in four years? Please... you have yet to get the same person out of office in the person of 44 presidents. Our true power structure doesnt allow for seeing the decision maker's face. The Japanese knew this well, only they knew better so nobody was fooled by the Emperor's Son of Heaven act.

Right...why don't you go back to the nut ward with the rest of the 9/11 truthers.

beemerphil stated:

I once thought like you beemer, but after reading the works of Fr. Fahey, I have to agree that a Catholic Monarchy is the best form of government; A monarchy that becomes absolute, is already a victim of Liberalism, and will soon fall to revolution.

I would agree that a CATHOLIC monarchy would be the best form of government but even that has problems. I don't want to be told what I must do for work, and let me add, Catholics are just as corrupt as any other politician. Christ is the only true King that will never be corrupt.

A Catholic monarchy has far less problems than a Catholic democracy. For a Catholic democracy, it will be hard-put to root out public menaces to society, like Freemasonry and other secret societies. And you're getting the wrong idea of monarchy if you think you do what you're told for work. It doesn't work like that at all, if you read the true history of the Middle Ages. People had far more rights than we'll ever have in this modern era.

An aside, petertherock. Please don't put down "9/11 truthers" (at least in general) as a few of us believe in those "conspiracy theories." And no, we're not "nuts" either. We've just been informing ourselves more, as we understand it. I just can't bring myself to believe the official story of the government, seeing as it has lied to the American people, time and again. And the "scientific experts" aren't any better; how can it, since this republic has been thoroughly infested with liberalism of the benign kind, that is now mushrooming into socialism? I don't deny, though, that there are many lies mixed in the various websites allegedly exposing 9/11.

This is turning out to be an interesting and thought-provoking thread.

Seeing the reference to King David reminded me that this week we have had 1 Samual readings in the Mass. If you go to 1 Samual:8 4-9, you will find that the Lord had certain ideas about his people having kings. Unless I read it wrong, God didn't want the people to have kings, but gave in after they whined enough about it.
4 Then all the ancients of Israel being assembled came to Samuel to Ramatha. 5 And they said to him: Behold you are old, and your sons walk not in your ways: make us a king, to judge us, as all nations have. 6 And the word was displeasing in the eyes of Samuel, that they should say: Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord said to Samuel: Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to you. For they have not rejected you, but me, that I should not reign over them. 8 According to all their works, they have done from the day that I brought them out of Egypt until this day: as they have forsaken me, and served strange gods, so do they also unto you. 9 Now, therefore, hearken to their voice: but yet testify to them, and foretell them the right of the king, that shall reign over them.
Here is a link to a pretty good on-line Bible. It has the Greek and Latin words included.
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1sa008.htm

:) :) :)

I voted monarchy but , of course, one would have to qualify that. Catholic monarchy, but because the monarch is nominally Catholic it doesn´t necessarily mean that he (or she) is fit to rule. What about Alfonso XIII and Louis XIV with their multiple adulteries and worship of luxury? A Catholic monarch must be just, moderate, and set a good example.
I believe the best form of society would be distributist and that each class in society would be aware of its obligations. Nobody in society should live at the expense of anybody else and everbody´s efforts should be properly rewarded his work and their talents be developed.
In a society where God is acknowledged as the highest power in the land and his laws obeyed, a king cannot be unjust, if he is he must be deposed.

What I just wrote looks rather illiterate........oh, dear!.......but understandable, I hope.

Beemer,
Samuel was justly upset, because up to that time Israel was ruled by God through His prophets; he rightly saw that the Jews in asking for a King, were indirectly revolting against God's rule; as God Himself pointed out:"For they have not rejected you, but me, that I should not reign over them."
No other nation would have the privilege of God ruling directly over them; but Catholic Monarchy would be the closest thing to a restoration of the order willed by God after the establishment of His Church on earth.

However, it say's in the book of the Judges:

"And in those days, there was no king in Israel, but every man did what seemed right to himself.

If Monarchy was not the preferred government of God, why did Our Lord choose to be of royal blood? Had not Our Lord been born St.Joseph would have been King of Israel and Our Lady would have been it's Queen, though of course Our Lord and Our Lady are our ultimate monarchs anyway (politically and spiritually)!

But what of the kings who came after LouisXIV, like LouisXV and LoiusXVI who were very good Catholics (disregarding the modernist lies and myths commonly believed about them)? What of the Hapsburg Kings of Spain who passed down their wisdom and experience from father to son for at least four generations? Would that happen in a republic?

In a monarchy, only one man must be good. In a republic, EVERYBODY has to be good. In a monarchy, it takes one man's will to do what is right. In a republic, it takes 300million wills to do what is right. In a monarchy, I only have to pray for ONE man. In a republic, I have to pray for EVERYBODY's conversion.

Philosophies are what rule individual men of authority.

Who do you want to have their hands on the stearing-wheel when your riding in a car? One man who wants to go one direction, or 300million people all with their hands on the wheel who dont know how to drive (let alone know where they are going or why they should go there)??

If I want to convert a large family, do I convert the children one at a time, or do I convert the father so he makes his children go to catechism classes and learn the faith? Obviously the latter. The Church owes most of her conversions of nations to the conversion of their kings. All the nations of Europe are Catholic today because of the conversion of one of their kings and patriarchs who decided to "force" the faith on their people.

And what good is a Catholic president if he is going to be out in 4-8 years?

What good is the authority of a father if his children make the decisions?

Well, I am not sure about Louis XVI, but Louis XV lived in sin for rather a long time with Madame de Pompadour, who was a married woman, forcing his wife to accept the situation. The Habsburg Emperor Franz Josef also had a long relationship with a woman who was not his wife. OK, there is no proof of him having a sexual relationship with Frau Schratt, but there isn´t much doubt about Louis XV. Do you think the "private life" of a king should be disregarded? Queens were totally disgraced for committing adultery, but it seems to have been acceptable for kings! (What kind of women were these Catholic mistresses anyway? Mrs Fitzherbert, who was a devout Catholic widow, absolutely refused to go to bed with George IV until they were married, even though she knew she could never "officially" and openly be acknowledged as his wife. Very laudable!)

While I am a Catholic Monarchist, I do have to agree that the private lives of Luis XVI (at least while he was younger), and Luis XV (who had to be rescued by his daughters from the Grand Trianon and the clutches of Mme. Du Barry), were far from exemplary; nontheless there were kings that lived virtuous lives and even some that were canonized.
Historically there have been both saints and sinners that have occupied the thrones; but while we could say the same as far as "sinners" go for the heads of democratic governments, we still do not have a single canonized saint from a democratic (in the Liberal sense) republic; and Gabriel Garcia Moreno wont count either, as he did not rule a Liberal republic.
The fact remains that a Monarchy is the form of government that most closely resembles the form that Christ willed for His Church, and which is the most natural form; for it also most closely imitates the form of government of the smallest unit of society, which is the family.

This is a thought-provoking thread. I am not sure if Jesus was of Royal blood, I would think that He was of Devine blood.
As far as some kings being stinkers-every form of government has it's share of bad guys. It is just simpler, and usually much less bloody, getting rid of leaders in other forms of government.
Another problem that I would like to point out about a monarchy is the "every other generation" aspect of it. Most people have seen what I am talking about. For some reason, when you have an exceptional family, every other generation turns out to be a disappointment. You will have a brilliant generation followed by a mediocre generation. If you could time it right, and have the grandchildren take over the throne instead of the children, there might be some merit in having royalty.
Another possibility would be to have an honest Catholic dictator. Instead of his family taking over the leadership, have a new dictator picked by the people after the old dictator's death, OR execution. Provide a comfortable living for his heirs, and they will not have any reason to cheat, lie, and murder to retain power.
Just some thoughts on the subject. Feel free to comment.

:) :) :)

Our Divine Savior's Royal blood is documented in Sacred Scriptures in both St. Mathew I. 1-16 and St. Luke 3. 23-38; There is no objection as a Catholic to prefering a form of govenment other than a monarchy, as long as that form did not violate the doctrines of the Church, as for example Socialim; and I would rather live in a Catholic republic rather than in a non-Catholic monarchy.
The chances of being ruled by a real stinko are greater however in a modern democracy, because the truly honest man cannot get elected; so that even if you have a change of ruler with elections every so often, you finish being ruled by the same type of person, and the same power brokers that are able to get their candidates elected.
There is the additional disadvantage that the state is the ultimate power in all modern forms of govenment; none recognize the Church or Her indirect power; the citizen is left at the mercy of the modern state; with no higher court of appeals than the state itself.
While in a Catholic monarchy, you have the presence of the Church to safeguard the rights of the citizens, and to keep the king from exceeding his powers; plus recalling him to his duties.

:yes:

I voted for dictatorship.

The term has become abused in recent times but according to Aristotle a dictatorship is a neutral term. It can become a tyranny but then so can a monarchy. Similarly an aristocracy can become an oligarchy and a democracy can equate to mob rule.

What we have today is a crypto judeo-oligarchy under the guise of democracy. Monarchy will not help us. For example, who today is the true King or Queen of England? Der Reaktion is a blind alley at best.

What we need today is a true Leader of the calibre of Sir Oswald Mosley who would rule in the best interests of the British Folk. No democratic prime minister can make the radical changes necessary.

Put not your trust in Princes...................

PS

Now, there's a surprise! :lol:

Objectively though, and in principle, is a Dictatorship really better than a Monarchy? :huh:

BOOOooo!

If he were King, he'd be held responsible. Or he'd be got rid of - that does sometimes happen to Kings, you know. ;)

I was thinking of voting Dictator... the difference between Monarchy (if it's a true Monarchy) and Dictatorship is not great. It is effectively the same thing - the latter word is a lefty nomenclature.

I voted "other". I would choose a Republic. A Constitutional Republic to be specific. It would protect the rights of the minority while allowing for a modified majority rule.

The problem with a Monarchy is that it is entirely dependant on the "benevolence" of the Monarch.

Unfortunately, constitutional republics are the babies of Masons and other secret societies. In fact, the United States right now is full of them! Monarchies aren't so easily controlled. And monarchies in the Middle Ages didn't have the king exert the unlimited power that most people think he had. If he was bad, the people, the guilds, and aristocrats certainly resisted him. You remember Magna Carta?

BOOOOoooo...! :throwrottentomatoes:

Don't fool yourself.

No it's not. He is not free to do whatever he wishes: he can be held to account. Unlike in a "DemARCHracy", where people are never certain who the real power players behind the scenes really are...

Another problem with democracies and republics is that the people have too much power. If we look at our world today and at countries like the US that have a republic, you will see that NOBODY is responsible enough to educate themselves as to how their government actually works, let alone know who is suitable to occupy the positions of power that they will have over them. If the government is of the people and BY the people, then I dont want the people making the decisions that affect ME since they are selfish, proud, lazy, irreligious, and modernistic and dont have a clue what in the heck they are doing. I think that is the very reason why God allowed the Revolutions to happen. It was His way of saying "You think your so smart? Then here... here are the reigns of power. You think you as a people can make better decisions than those before you? If so, show Me." And with the past 200 years of salvation history we've shown that we cant.


Say... imagine if we deposed Clare and Patricius and forced them to hand over the administrative powers of the forum to ALL of us members! Ignis Ardens would be so much better! All would be at true liberty! :lol: ;)

But then... to what purpose, right?

Where is the throw rotten tomatoes emoticons? :)

I'd better go and look for one!

Voila!

:tomato:

I love it! I want to throw some tomatoes too!
:tomato::tomato::tomato::tomato::tomato::tomato::tomato::tomato:

I think it was David Starky -- though i may be wrong, welcome to senility my friend - it's your future! -- who said that what we live under is an ELECTED OLIGARCHY.

I think that is 'bang on' as a chubby ginger friend used to say.

The Masonic media keep the oligarchy in power and it's a closed 2 party state [same as America] in which lobby groups and vested interests keep the greedy, vain and treacherous in power.

The media work as their task-master, cheerleader and stand ready to chastise them should they ever, say, stand up against usury-banking, abortion, homosexuality etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Monarchy used to be about checks and balances and that is how it worked, the Pope being the guiding hand, the barons/people being the armed force from below.

With bankers and media now being the force for checks and balances -- well, you can work out the rest!

That's why we live in a #### hole of a country. :clare:

Certainly the bankers are the power in the land; everything comes second to the manipulation of money and credit as the principal industry in the world. And notice how capital cities are sustained by their financial centres whose managers are rewarded handsomely because of the grip they have on us all.

Which turns monarchies into picturesque distractions feigning the importance they know they no longer have. Their partners in deception are the governing elites which are at least dropping that false assertion of claiming to represent the people while making us all compliant consumers for the money men and their fawning allies to play with.