As Catholic are we...or should we be

[mea kulpa]

Should we be monarchists?

Personally i have never thought about monarchy until recently. I have no love for our protestant and fake queen. But then king francis ii is the rightful king of britain and i know nothing about him

Jesus is the king of kingd
The jews were ruled by kings
The holy roman emire was ruled by kings under the pope
The pope himself is a king.

If the pope appointed a king for your nation but subject to the supreme pontiff.

Would you support that appointed King in your country... i think it will be interesting to see Americans response vs european response

For me i would gladdly supprt a king apponinted by the pope. I am not a political party type person maybe unbeknown i have been a monarchist who would like a king who rules in obedience to divine authority

 

[pdudgeon]

from the American side, my answer would be definitely no.
The whole concept of biblical kings began from the envy of other countries who had kings; it was never God's plan.
He aquiesced, but warned Israel that they would regret it.
I have one King, and His name is Jesus.

 

[mea kulpa]

from the American side, my answer would be definitely no.
The whole concept of biblical kings began from the envy of other countries who had kings; it was never God's plan.
He aquiesced, but warned Israel that they would regret it.
I have one King, and His name is Jesus.

So how about the catholic monarchs do you think that was a mistake and not ordained by God?

 

[football5680]

Yes, if they were subject to the Pope but I would prefer a theocracy over that because it cuts out the middleman. The problem with a monarchy is that the succession of power is hereditary. The Pope may appoint a righteous King who is faithful to the Church but there is no way to tell if his son will be. If the son turns out to be a heretic or something, then the correct course of action would be to remove them from power and this brings unnecessary instability. Another problem with the system arises when the line of succession is unclear and this has caused numerous wars, even between countries who both happened to be Catholic. At one point in time, Monarchies were necessary but today if the Pope says something in Rome, we can see it in real time thousands of miles away.

 

[Gnarwhal]

Every system we could try to implement is inherently flawed because we're the ones implementing it. Where one system is strong, another is weak, and vice-versa. A monarchy has it's benefits and drawbacks, a democracy tends to swap out and exchange some of those strengths and weaknesses, as do other forms of government. We're not going to see a flawless rule on Earth until Kingdom come. In the meantime we just try to do the best with what we've been given - at least we have the freedom to have conversations like these. Lord knows if this was the DPRK we'd all be in labor camps for the next 10 years.

 

[mea kulpa]

Every system we could try to implement is inherently flawed because we're the ones implementing it. Where one system is strong, another is weak, and vice-versa. A monarchy has it's benefits and drawbacks, a democracy tends to swap out and exchange some of those strengths and weaknesses, as do other forms of government. We're not going to see a flawless rule on Earth until Kingdom come. In the meantime we just try to do the best with what we've been given - at least we have the freedom to have conversations like these. Lord knows if this was the DPRK we'd all be in labor camps for the next 10 years.

Freedom is a fragile thing more fragile then many realise like glass it can be shattered at anytime.

 

[Rhamiel]

If the pope appointed a king for your nation but subject to the supreme pontiff.

yes
I think that too many people assume that a monarchy would be an absolute monarchy

for example, Morocco has a very strong King but they also have a Constitution and a Legislature and a High Court
but with the King as Chief Executive
the King has more power then the President of the USA (I mean in terms of division of power, the USA is a much stronger country)
but it is not absolute power

from the American side, my answer would be definitely no.
The whole concept of biblical kings began from the envy of other countries who had kings; it was never God's plan.
He aquiesced, but warned Israel that they would regret it.
I have one King, and His name is Jesus.

well Israel was ruled by tribal leaders and in times of trouble those tribes would invest full authority in a Judge

so while that was not a hereditary Kingship, it is not like Athenian style Democracy or anything like that was lifted up as the ideal
I am not criticizing your love of democracy
lol this is a subject that I have thought about a lot and one thing I do is try and play devils advocate to every idea, like just try and rip it down to see if it can handle a "stress test"

Yes, if they were subject to the Pope but I would prefer a theocracy over that because it cuts out the middleman.

Jesus says that we should render unto Caesar that which is Caesar, ancient Israel had a separate Monarchy and Priesthood
I am not arguing for total separation of Church and State
but that Government is a role for the laity
really in Christianity we do not have long histories of Theocracies
there were the Papal States, that at one point took up a good size chunk of central Italy, but the purpose of that was so that the Papacy could be independent, not under direct control of secular powers, that has not always worked well, but in theory it works.
there were a few colonies that were run by Religious orders, most of Brazil was run by the Jesuits at one time, and Spanish Missions across what is now Mexico and the South Western USA, but those did not really last that long
theocracy is not really the norm for Christianity