Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[Novus America]

A legitimate monarch is one who acquires the throne legally according to the established law and customs of their society. In the UK, and most European monarchies, bloodline is what determines a person's eligibility for the throne, and their right is ultimately derived from God.

I don't think legality alone should determine legitimacy.

That is the key. The idea their “right” comes from God has no evidence whatsoever.
And while the rule of law is important, what is legal is not necessarily good. Laws are a simply a means to and end.

[Purgatio]

I don't think legality alone should determine legitimacy.

That is the key. The idea their “right” comes from God has no evidence whatsoever.
And while the rule of law is important, what is legal is not necessarily good. Laws are a simply a means to and end.

Whether or not you believe in the 'divine right of Kings' or not you can't deny religion is a powerful legitimising force for a lot of monarchies and hence can provide a source of stability to a nation, even if you or I don't personally believe in the validity of that religion.

[Salus Maior]

Henry VIII married Catherine of Aragon in 1509, despite his own misgivings and the fact that she had been legally married to his late elder brother Arthur, technically making their marriage against canon law and the teachings of the church. Henry and Catherine's parents had acquired a dispensation from the pope in order to allow the marriage, a typical practice at the time. When Catherine could not produce a much-needed heir for Henry, Henry came to believe that he was being punished by God for marrying his brother's widow against the teachings of the church. This led him to petition the pope not for a divorce but for an annulment of a marriage that should technically never have been permitted in the first place. The pope refused to bend the rules this time, however, likely because of political pressure from Catherine's nephew, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. It was then that Henry resorted to declaring the Church of England independent of papal control. Far from the narrative parroted by papists of a pope nobly standing up to the demands of an arrogant king, [u]Henry was being far more consistent in following his conscience and his faith than the papacy had been, whatever other faults he undoubtedly had.[/u]

At any rate, Henry was in most respects a traditional Catholic, and the Church of England under him was largely unchanged from its former state whilst in communion with Rome. The English Reformation really took place under Edward VI and Elizabeth II, and the theology of the Anglican church took form with the leadership of men like Thomas Cranmer and Richard Hooker, who were absolutely earnest in their Protestant faith and desire to reform the church. The church from the Elizabethan Settlement up to the Oxford Movement of the 19th century was a clearly Protestant and predominantly Calvinist entity, although the Thirty-Nine Article were purposefully crafted to permit a range of Protestant viewpoints including not only Calvinist but also Arminian and Lutheran perspectives which were more characteristic of the high church. The idea that the Church of England's reformation was all about the ego of one self-absorbed monarch is deeply insulting, especially to the hundreds of English reformers who died agonisingly as a result of their convictions under Mary I; as is the ridiculous idea that Anglicanism is just Catholicism with the monarch taking the place of the pope.

Seeking out a marriage that was breaking church teaching in the first place doesn't exactly sound like a man that was overly concerned with church teaching (not to mention he was already in an affair with Mary Boleyn), and nor does schisming somehow make that better. You're blaming the Pope for being the immoral factor here for things he didn't even instigate. (As much as I criticize the church of the 16th/17th century).

Aside from dissolving the monasteries and destroying shrines to Saints, which were probably some of the oldest Christian institutions in Britain.

A great number of Catholics also died horribly because of what Henry VIII did, and its legacy. So you're not going to get much sympathy from me by citing that.

[Novus America]

That is the key. The idea their “right” comes from God has no evidence whatsoever.
And while the rule of law is important, what is legal is not necessarily good. Laws are a simply a means to and end.

Whether or not you believe in the 'divine right of Kings' or not you can't deny religion is a powerful legitimising force for a lot of monarchies and hence can provide a source of stability to a nation, even if you or I don't personally believe in the validity of that religion.

Of course. But there is a difference between seeing religion as a pragmatic thing, and then really believing God chooses our kings.

[Novus America]

Henry VIII married Catherine of Aragon in 1509, despite his own misgivings and the fact that she had been legally married to his late elder brother Arthur, technically making their marriage against canon law and the teachings of the church. Henry and Catherine's parents had acquired a dispensation from the pope in order to allow the marriage, a typical practice at the time. When Catherine could not produce a much-needed heir for Henry, Henry came to believe that he was being punished by God for marrying his brother's widow against the teachings of the church. This led him to petition the pope not for a divorce but for an annulment of a marriage that should technically never have been permitted in the first place. The pope refused to bend the rules this time, however, likely because of political pressure from Catherine's nephew, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. It was then that Henry resorted to declaring the Church of England independent of papal control. Far from the narrative parroted by papists of a pope nobly standing up to the demands of an arrogant king, [u]Henry was being far more consistent in following his conscience and his faith than the papacy had been, whatever other faults he undoubtedly had.[/u]

At any rate, Henry was in most respects a traditional Catholic, and the Church of England under him was largely unchanged from its former state whilst in communion with Rome. The English Reformation really took place under Edward VI and Elizabeth II, and the theology of the Anglican church took form with the leadership of men like Thomas Cranmer and Richard Hooker, who were absolutely earnest in their Protestant faith and desire to reform the church. The church from the Elizabethan Settlement up to the Oxford Movement of the 19th century was a clearly Protestant and predominantly Calvinist entity, although the Thirty-Nine Article were purposefully crafted to permit a range of Protestant viewpoints including not only Calvinist but also Arminian and Lutheran perspectives which were more characteristic of the high church. The idea that the Church of England's reformation was all about the ego of one self-absorbed monarch is deeply insulting, especially to the hundreds of English reformers who died agonisingly as a result of their convictions under Mary I; as is the ridiculous idea that Anglicanism is just Catholicism with the monarch taking the place of the pope.

Seeking out a marriage that was breaking church teaching in the first place doesn't exactly sound like a man that was overly concerned with church teaching (not to mention he was already in an affair with Mary Boleyn), and nor does schisming somehow make that better. You're blaming the Pope for being the immoral factor here for things he didn't even instigate. (As much as I criticize the church of the 16th/17th century).

Aside from dissolving the monasteries and destroying shrines to Saints, which were probably some of the oldest Christian institutions in Britain.

A great number of Catholics also died horribly because of what Henry VIII did, and its legacy. So you're not going to get much sympathy from me by citing that.

Yes, claiming the guy who did the dissolution of the monasteries, (just so he could pillage them for anything of value) was definitely no traditionalist.
By doing so he destroyed over a thousand years of tradition and eliminated some of the most important cultural institutions.

Claiming Henry VIII was a traditionalist is like claiming Mao and his Cultural Revolution were traditionalist.

The destruction of the monasteries destroyed much of and radically changed the church in Britain and British society and culture.

[Purgatio]

Whether or not you believe in the 'divine right of Kings' or not you can't deny religion is a powerful legitimising force for a lot of monarchies and hence can provide a source of stability to a nation, even if you or I don't personally believe in the validity of that religion.

Of course. But there is a difference between seeing religion as a pragmatic thing, and then really believing God chooses our kings.

Well I definitely don't believe that, but all the original poster said was that the divine right of kings conferred legitimacy on the King, and that legitimacy can come from the public support attached to a perceived religious endorsemet, rather than from a genuine religious or divine endorsement.

[Novus America]

Of course. But there is a difference between seeing religion as a pragmatic thing, and then really believing God chooses our kings.

Well I definitely don't believe that, but all the original poster said was that the divine right of kings conferred legitimacy on the King, and that legitimacy can come from the public support attached to a perceived religious endorsemet, rather than from a genuine religious or divine endorsement.

Fair enough.

[Old Tyrannia]

It's clear that neither Salus Maior nor Novus America actually bothered to read my post properly, thus I'm not going to bother addressing either of their strawman arguments. I invite third parties to read what I wrote themselves and see how it differs from what Salus and Novus imply I wrote.

I will note, however, that the destruction of shrines and dissolution of the monasteries was not a negative thing from the point of view of a reformed Christian, but rather a positive step away from the unscriptural and pagan practices that had corrupted the church.

[Novus America]

It's clear that neither Salus Maior nor Novus America actually bothered to read my post properly, thus I'm not going to bother addressing either of their strawman arguments. I invite third parties to read what I wrote themselves and see how it differs from what Salus and Novus imply I wrote.

I will note, however, that the destruction of shrines and dissolution of the monasteries was not a negative thing from the point of view of a reformed Christian, but rather a positive step away from the unscriptural and pagan practices that had corrupted the church.

Regardless of if you think it was good or not, it was radical and revolutionary, the destruction of tradition. Sometimes tradition must go, but such a sudden destruction of traditional society makes a (in this case violent) revolutionary, not a traditionalist.

Also he did it so he could get money, not for theological reasons.
He did it all for his own political and personal purposes not out of any genuine devotion.

[Nea Byzantia]

Of course. But there is a difference between seeing religion as a pragmatic thing, and then really believing God chooses our kings.

Well I definitely don't believe that, but all the original poster said was that the divine right of kings conferred legitimacy on the King, and that legitimacy can come from the public support attached to a perceived religious endorsemet, rather than from a genuine religious or divine endorsement.

Religion is also there - more importantly - to hold the Rulers accountable for their actions and policies; the Church is there (politically speaking) to keep the King honest..."Divine Right"/"Mandate of Heaven is not unconditional - God gave you your Throne, He can take it away from you if you're unworthy of it, or abuse it.

I'd argue that the institution of Monarchy leans on that of the Church; you can't have a Monarchy without a strong religious faith among the populace. Ideally, the Church and the State (embodied in the Monarch) should seek Symphonia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphonia_%28theology%29). As a Monarchist, I subscribe more to the idea of Symphonia more than I do to that of Western-style Absolutism, or its polar-opposite, Theocracy; where the Monarch (and by extension the State) dominates the Church, or the Church dominates the State. I also reject the modern notion of Secularism and banishing the Church to the fringes of Society. Rather, I believe the most stable relationship between Church and State is to seek Symphonia, or Balance; to complement each other, essentially.

Monarchy in the secularized and de-moralized environment of the West today, doesn't really work and is not feasible in the long-term. Unless Britain and the other European Monarchies return to a strong faith in Christianity, there is no way the Monarchies there will survive long. The Fall of the old Monarchies in Europe went hand-in-hand with the secularization and rise of atheism that began in the West in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries.

[Painisia]

An important message to RWDT and NS:

Soon, Painisia will be rebaptized as "Nazariles". Just to let you all know so that everybody here will not think that I have disappeared from NS.

[Old Tyrannia]

It's clear that neither Salus Maior nor Novus America actually bothered to read my post properly, thus I'm not going to bother addressing either of their strawman arguments. I invite third parties to read what I wrote themselves and see how it differs from what Salus and Novus imply I wrote.

I will note, however, that the destruction of shrines and dissolution of the monasteries was not a negative thing from the point of view of a reformed Christian, but rather a positive step away from the unscriptural and pagan practices that had corrupted the church.

Regardless of if you think it was good or not, it was radical and revolutionary, the destruction of tradition. Sometimes tradition must go, but such a sudden destruction of traditional society makes a (in this case violent) revolutionary, not a traditionalist.

Also he did it so he could get money, not for theological reasons.
He did it all for his own political and personal purposes not out of any genuine devotion.

At no point did I claim that Henry VIII was a traditionalist in the sense that you're making out. I only stated that he was a traditional Catholic in most theological matters, rather than a convinced Protestant, which he plainly was. You don't seem to understand Christian theology beyond the most superficial level, however, so perhaps you can be forgiven your confusion.

[Camelone]

Old Tyrannia what’s up with all of the hatred for the Roman Catholic Church? Even as a Continuing Anglican I have no ill will towards Rome and I can also recognize the English Reformation was a giant clusterfuck of killings and tyranny with the theology being in the background of the politics.

[Salus Maior]

. It's not like Catholics on this forum (and the Orthodox as well to a degree) don't constantly spout hatred for Protestantism.

I certainly criticize Protestantism (well, more the low-church Protestantism I was raised in rather than High Church), but I don't recall ever referring to Anglicanism as "the vile (or should I say, perfidious?) English religion" nor have I gone out of my way to make snide remarks about the Archbishop and his character.

[Novus America]

Regardless of if you think it was good or not, it was radical and revolutionary, the destruction of tradition. Sometimes tradition must go, but such a sudden destruction of traditional society makes a (in this case violent) revolutionary, not a traditionalist.

Also he did it so he could get money, not for theological reasons.
He did it all for his own political and personal purposes not out of any genuine devotion.

At no point did I claim that Henry VIII was a traditionalist in the sense that you're making out. I only stated that he was a traditional Catholic in most theological matters, rather than a convinced Protestant, which he plainly was. You don't seem to understand Christian theology beyond the most superficial level, however, so perhaps you can be forgiven your confusion.

I doubt Henry VIII was much a theologian either.
I am sure he cared about his desires and political power, not ivory tower theological debates.

[Nea Byzantia]

Regardless of if you think it was good or not, it was radical and revolutionary, the destruction of tradition. Sometimes tradition must go, but such a sudden destruction of traditional society makes a (in this case violent) revolutionary, not a traditionalist.

Also he did it so he could get money, not for theological reasons.
He did it all for his own political and personal purposes not out of any genuine devotion.

At no point did I claim that Henry VIII was a traditionalist in the sense that you're making out. I only stated that he was a traditional Catholic in most theological matters, rather than a convinced Protestant.

Henry VIII's "traditional Catholic theology" did nothing to stop him from looting England's ancient monasteries and abbeys.

[Nea Byzantia]

At no point did I claim that Henry VIII was a traditionalist in the sense that you're making out. I only stated that he was a traditional Catholic in most theological matters, rather than a convinced Protestant, which he plainly was. You don't seem to understand Christian theology beyond the most superficial level, however, so perhaps you can be forgiven your confusion.

I doubt Henry VIII was much a theologian either.
I am sure he cared about his desires and political power, ivory tower theological debates.

Agreed. I don't think Henry gave a rat's ass about Theology.

[Novus America]

At no point did I claim that Henry VIII was a traditionalist in the sense that you're making out. I only stated that he was a traditional Catholic in most theological matters, rather than a convinced Protestant.

Henry VIII's "traditional Catholic theology" did nothing to stop him from looting England's ancient monasteries and abbeys.

But OT supports the looting.
Admittedly it is true the looting was more because of Henry VIII’s megalomania than any theological concerns. Henry VIII was not much a theologian. He was a obsessed with power and wealth though.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Hello everyone! If I may ask, what's the current point of discussion? It seems to be something about the "Divine Right of Kings" and/or the "Mandate of Heaven", but I could be mistaken.

Also, I seem to notice that my earlier mean-spirited joke about Henry VIII and the English Reformation has spiraled out of control into all of my RWDT friends being hostile and belligerent to each other. It's sad... I'm sad now. I shouldn't have made that remark earlier.

[Salus Maior]

It's clear that neither Salus Maior nor Novus America actually bothered to read my post properly, thus I'm not going to bother addressing either of their strawman arguments. I invite third parties to read what I wrote themselves and see how it differs from what Salus and Novus imply I wrote.

I will note, however, that the destruction of shrines and dissolution of the monasteries was not a negative thing from the point of view of a reformed Christian, but rather a positive step away from the unscriptural and pagan practices that had corrupted the church.

Why don't you correct me then? Because after a second and third read I haven't come to any different conclusion.

Yeah, I know, I used to believe that. And it's bullshit.

The veneration of Saints and Monastic living are neither unscriptural nor pagan, and are both ancient Christian practices with a great deal of historical importance. Protestantism's hatred and destruction of them only goes to show that they have no connection to legitimate Christian history and are very clearly not any sort of sincere continuation of the longstanding Christian tradition. Nevermind that even from a secular point of view, the destruction of such ancient artifacts and sites is beyond barbaric and part of the reason I became disillusioned with Protestantism.

[Novus America]

. It's not like Catholics on this forum (and the Orthodox as well to a degree) don't constantly spout hatred for Protestantism.

I certainly criticize Protestantism (well, more the low-church Protestantism I was raised in rather than High Church), but I don't recall ever referring to Anglicanism as "the vile (or should I say, perfidious?) English religion" nor have I gone out of my way to make snide remarks about the Archbishop and his character.

And I do not remember many people advocating Protestants be banned from public office and public life.
Sure there is arguments back and forth.

But legitimate criticism is different than hatred.

The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines all make fun of each other, rib each other, engage in verbal sparring, but they are still brothers.
Brotherhood is not often polite deference and complete agreement but it is not hate.

[Nazariles]

Here I am. Let us continue the theological and ideological quarrel

[Nea Byzantia]

I certainly criticize Protestantism (well, more the low-church Protestantism I was raised in rather than High Church), but I don't recall ever referring to Anglicanism as "the vile (or should I say, perfidious?) English religion" nor have I gone out of my way to make snide remarks about the Archbishop and his character.

And I am not do not remember many people advocating Protestants be banned from public office and public life.
Sure there is arguments back and forth.

But legitimate criticism is different than hatred.

The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines all make fun of each other, rib each other, engage in verbal sparring, but they are still brothers.
Brotherhood is not often polite deference and complete agreement but it is not hate.

Very often brotherhood is expressed in friendly sparring or rough-play, or otherwise ribbing each other.

[Novus America]

Hello everyone! If I may ask, what's the current point of discussion? It seems to be something about the "Divine Right of Kings" and/or the "Mandate of Heaven", but I could be mistaken.

Also, I seem to notice that my earlier mean-spirited joke about Henry VIII and the English Reformation has spiraled out of control into all of my RWDT friends being hostile and belligerent to each other. It's sad... I'm sad now. I shouldn't have made that remark earlier.

Oh well Henry VIII is one of the most controversial figures in history. So there is going to be debate over his historical role, and it is likely to get acrimonious at times.

[Salus Maior]

I certainly criticize Protestantism (well, more the low-church Protestantism I was raised in rather than High Church), but I don't recall ever referring to Anglicanism as "the vile (or should I say, perfidious?) English religion" nor have I gone out of my way to make snide remarks about the Archbishop and his character.

And I am not do not remember many people advocating Protestants be banned from public office and public life.
Sure there is arguments back and forth.

But legitimate criticism is different than hatred.

The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines all make fun of each other, rib each other, engage in verbal sparring, but they are still brothers.
Brotherhood is not often polite deference and complete agreement but it is not hate.

I know what ribbing is, and I can tell what it is when I see it.