Better late than never, as the saying goes. At any rate I was at work all day yesterday and rather under the weather when I got home. Catholic England has (or had) Apostolic Succession and Monarchy at her heart; St Charles the Martyr (one of the patron saints of Liturgiae Causa - a truly ecumenical 'blog) was martyred for the preservation of these things. One only needs to look at what happened to these Isles (I don't say ''British Isles'') under the ugly despot Oliver Cromwell to see that without Monarchy, bad things happen. That isn't to say that there aren't bad Monarchs, but King John and our Sovereign Queen Elizabeth II are not the same person, are they? Monarchy is intrinsically good and Christian. Republics are not. It is no coincidence that δημοκρατία meant something like ''mob rule'' to the Greeks. Anyone who disagrees with me in this matter scarcely deserves the name Catholic.
Great Charles his double misery was this,
Unfaithful friends, ignoble enemies;
Had any heathen been this prince's foe,
He would have wept to see him injured so.
(Katherine Philips, Upon the Double Murder of King Charles, 1667).
I wonder why Rome didn't name St Charles patron of their English Ordinariate?
If one were to put it simply, Charles I was a martyr for, more than anything else, jure divino episcopacy, that is, that an episcopal church polity was an absolute necessity for the existence of a "true" church.
ReplyDeleteOne might read the chapter "The Man Charles Stuart" in Conrad Russell's *The Causes of the English Civil War* (Oxford University Press, 1990) for a good portrait of the king penned by one who is not very sympathetic towards him. In short, he portrays him as an egregiously incompetent politician (due to his personality), but as a man of firm, and usually inflexible, principles.
For example, in 1647 he astonished his closest advisers when he refused their advise to agree on a temporary establishment of Presbyterianism in england, even though as part of the agreement he would be permitted to worship in private using the Prayer Book. He declared that a presbyterian form of church polity was infinitely worse than "popery," for it destroyed the very basis of a church, whereas popery was an "excess." His advisers expressed astonishment, replying that "few Protestants" had ever held such an opinion.
Thank you for your contribution, Dr Tighe. I shall certainly invest in Conrad Russell's book.
ReplyDeleteI dislike all the Stuarts. Regarding their respective policies on Ireland, one can draw direct parallels between the conduct of Cromwell and Charles I's Lord Deputy, Thomas Wentworth.
ReplyDeleteMartyr non potest esse qui in Ecclesia propria est.
ReplyDelete"I wonder why Rome didn't name St Charles patron of their English Ordinariate?"
ReplyDeleteBecause he is not a saint. If he were a martyr, it was to the cause of royal despotism and the plunder of the churches of God. Do you truly mourn for the loss of the Sarum Rite and the rood screen of Osgiliath (aka Binham Priory), and wish to exalt the tyrannical heir of Elizabeth the Scarlet?
"Monarchy is intrinsically good and Christian. Republics are not."
ReplyDeleteI do disagree, having no vested interest in claiming the name "Catholic" (except in the small "c" sense...). Probably no surprise coming from a Presbyterian (though no great fan of Cromwell), but I'd like to hear more about this, to my mind, rather remarkable claim that any form of human government is inherently "intrinsically good and Christian," let alone that concentrates power in the hands of a single individual in the name of a purported "divine right."
Not trying to pick a fight, you understand - just curious to hear more. Blessings!
"Because he is not a saint."
ReplyDeleteI am surprised he did not write, "End of". Such people have no interest in discussion; they know what is right. End of.
Yet in the eyes of Rome, Charles is not a canonised saint, and only they (or at least "blesseds") would be named saintly patron of anything under Rome.
ReplyDeleteAs 'Mrs. Brown' might say to Alex "That's nice!"
ReplyDeleteLittle Black Sambo, (really?) you can hardly object to what you incorrectly perceive as a peremptory tone on THIS blog of all places.
ReplyDeleteThe 'sanctity' of King Charles is based on the fantasy that he died to preserve the fantasy of Apostolic succession within the Church of England. The reality is that like all English monarchs since Henry VIII, his sole concern was that the C. of E. remain what they created it to be: a chaplaincy service to an absolute monarchy, utterly degraded and enslaved to the will of the sovreign, now represented by people like Tony Blair.
LBS (awesome choice of name, dude!), you can hardly object to what you perceive as my peremptory tone on THIS blog of all places.
ReplyDeleteThe "sanctity" of King Charles is based on the fantasy that he died to preserve the fantasy of Apostolic Succession within the Church of England. The reality is that like all English monarchs since Bloody Elizabeth (and her horrid father) his sole concern was that the C. of E. remain what they created it to be: a chaplaincy service to an absolute monarchy, utterly degraded and enslaved to the will and whim of the sovereign, currently represented by the likes of Tony Blair.
Mike, perhaps Eusebius of Caesarea might answer your question?
ReplyDelete''From Him and through Him the king who is dear to God receives an image of the Kingdom that is above and so in imitation of that greater King himself guides and directs the course of everything on earth. He looks up to see the archetypal pattern and guides them that he rules in accordance with that pattern. The basic principle of kingly authority is the establishment of a single source of authority to which everything is subject. Monarchy is superior to every other constitution and form of government. For polyarchy, where everyone competes on equal terms, is really anarchy and discord.''
Alex Ferrara, I thought Tony Bliar was a Roman Catholic?
ReplyDeleteAssuming that "Bliar" was deliberate and not a typo, I tip my hat. Sorry about the double commenting, google is acting oddly. He was not a Catholic when he appointed the current Archdruid of Canterbury.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing the quote from Eusebius. I most emphatically disagree with it (again, not surprising, I'm sure), but am glad to know of it.
ReplyDelete