/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

>>2282

no

>>2282

yes

>>2282

IMO, yes it was a mistake.

1054 was a mistake as well.

Because if it wasn't for 1054, the Vatican would have never abused it's power, leading to the reformation.

>>2282

A bit of both. The reformation pushed the Church to much needed reforms, and in that it was good, but their insistence on splitting the church had thrown all of christendom into dissarray, caused numerous devastating wars in Europe, and was overall a catastrophe. The reformation should have been just that - a reform movement that seeks to reform the church as a whole, rather than split and form a new one

>>2285

>no

>>2287

> the Vatican abused its power

>>2288

> The reformation pushed the Church to much needed reforms

Why hello there. It's just another day on r/monarchism/ it seems

>>2289

>simony and absentee bishops were just fine

>>2308

>legitimate spiritual government

XD

>>2282

Yes. Liberalism was fueled off the furious protestants who desired freedom from the Vatican's dogged pursuit of the truth and unwavering will to crush heresy. Though I deem Papism heresy as an Orthodox Christian, it did have the right mindset about dealing with heresy. The demands of freedom of interpretation of scripture and freedom of worship naturally played into the philosophy of the Enlightenment.

>>2440

This is not how Catholicism works protescuck. Go and cry to your bishop/mom/whore (one person) because I was mean to you.

It's a direct consequence of humanism, and decadence of the church.

"Libre examen", so there is no dogma, and debt is allowed (and so that's the founding of the high financial mafia).

So yeah, protestantism is a huge step in the direction of modernity, and so in the direction of the end of the world.

>>2440

Well, you can definitively question catholicism, but if you do, that does not push you mandatorily towards protestantism. There is plenty of branchs in christiannism.

Moreover, I actually agree with his statement. The problem is not the fact that we should be against the ban of weapon, the problem is the ban on weapon, ONLY on some part of the society. If every army of the world decide to surrend their nuclear weapons at once, then it would be good. Now, forcing only some countries to do that is wrong. That's the same with gunban. If the army, the police and the criminals decide to too surrend their weapons, then yeah, it would be fine for people to surrend them too. The problem is the situation where police, army and criminals keep them while removing them from the hand of honest citizens.

Anyway, the Vatican is satanic. You must be retarded to listen to them. But that does not make you a protestan. Following Saint Augustin and the Evangiles simply makes you a christian, not anything else.

Yes.

It impeded our retaking of Byzantium.

>>2308

>Rebellion is a sin

Have you taken a look at the world's governments lately?

>>2464

>If every army of the world decide to surrend their nuclear weapons at once, then it would be good.

Nobody will do that, ever. No amount of weapon banning will prevent a person from killing another.

Take a gun away from a man and he'll kill you with a knife.

Take the knife away and he'll kill you with a rock.

Take the rock away and he'll kill you with his bare hands.

Weapons equalize the meek with the wicked when the strong aren't there to defend them.

>>3348

Those happened thanks to rebellion,so they are rebellion.

Thus,rebelling against current governments is not rebellion,it's trying to reestablish order.

>>3351

>Thus,rebelling against current governments is not rebellion,it's trying to reestablish order.

Not necessarily.

Remember the last military coup d'etat in Thailand?

>>3351

>Polish Commonwealth flag

>r-rebellions are bad hurr

You do realize that magnates had the legal right to rebel against the king, right?

>>2282

Yes, but it became inevitable after the papacy lifted itself above the imperial throne by murdering the entire Hohenstaufen dynasty after Friedrich II.

The Emperor must rule all, even the pope, as he is not only god's representative on earth, he is a god in his own right.

If you don't like despotism, yes. If you like your spiritual authority to be also your secular ruler, go ahead and become a prussian weaboo faggot cuck. There is a difference between authority and authoritarianism and only one is Holy, Catholic and Apostolic,

>>4680

>If you like your spiritual authority to be also your secular ruler

Our spiritual authority is God alone you dumb popecuck

>>4682

God and you local schizophrenic pastor Jim who angels spoke to. History is clear that protism has 3 ways: authoritarian cult, authoritarian state religion or an excuse for urban merchant morality.

>>4686

>If you didn't have the Protestant reformation that guy would never have come into power

Why do Cathodox think anything they dislike is Protestantism's fault? It's schizo af

>>4695

Because the idea of rewriting the word of God to reflect one's personal wants and agenda is a distinctly Protestant thing to do, with the way each one has his own special snowflake church. And the antipope is doing exactly that, by making wild declarations about atheists and fags going to heaven.

Protestantism paved the way for modernity by making every man his own Pope, destroying the belief in authority & objective morality.

>>4698

I love the way you always project your own beliefs onto us and ours onto yourselves; right, you're the ones who say to believe the plain teaching of scripture, and we're the ones that say to disregard it and just believe whatever a human teacher says, right, that's us. It's like you're all incapable of intellectual honesty

>>4858

>In Europe we have the exact opposite

Lmao, sure. Europe is such a famed bastion of conservative thought that Ireland has fag "marriage" written into its constitution and Poland was pressured by a huge protest into keeping abortion legal. But I'm sure that's somehow the Reformation or America's fault, right?

>The pope tells us not to stone fags

Actually he tells us not to judge them

>You can't be Christian if you want to harm sinners because they are sinners

<there is an entire book of the bible dedicated to how sinners should be punished

<God sends sinners to hell

<God can't be Christian

You're a moron, you anarchist

>Inb4 OT xD you should know better, unless you prefer the old law to the new

<OT doesn't come from God

t. Marcion

>>4961

God is our pope, He holds authority, and He provides objective morality. You people literally think that if you aren't raising a man to equality with God, you're an atheist

>>4962

>Poland was pressured by a huge protest into keeping abortion legal.

Legal for deformed foetuses, rape and incest only. That's pretty damn good to be fair, though they should ban Dawn syndrome abortions.

>>4962

>Famed bastion of conservative thought. Because conservativism in America is doing just fine xD Yeah, the Republicans are so edgy [insert Pence meme].

>There is a difference between a gay person and a sodomite. Surely you understand this. The pope did not condone sodomy practiced by homosexuals or heterosexuals.

>God can't be Christian

God is not a president of a nation called Christianity you imbecile, of course God is not Christian. Is God a human follower of the baptism of St. John the Baptist who professes the resurrection of Jesus Christ? You think perhaps God has to follow the commandments? Jesus was Christian, yes, and what does he do to the adulteress? 'I do not condemn you, go and sin no more'

>>4999

why?

>>4999

The kind of memes you have to be on to have that particular set of qualifiers is amusing. Refusing to give birth to children who will suffer tremendously in life due to their horrific genetic abnormalities, that could easily be seen as humanitarian, mercy killing. Refusing to give birth to children who were conceived of with close family members could be seen similarly, though really it shouldn't have its own qualifier since if they're deformed they're deformed, if they're not they're not. But the amusing one is "also rape". Children conceived of by rape aren't any more likely to be deformed, they aren't any more likely to suffer tremendously in life, they aren't more likely to go off and produce hordes of deformed children themselves. That qualification is entirely vanity or pride. So the whole story is "abortion is morally wrong, so it should be illegal! It's literally just murdering children! Unless, of course, the child is a genetic freak or the woman suffered at conception then, I guess, it's totally cool and not an immoral murder of children."

>>4999

Absolute state of Poles

>>5000

>There is a difference between a gay person and a sodomite

Read my words very carefully: Kill yourself. No seriously, kill yourself, you are everything wrong with the world you human cancer. You faglover, you subhuman-adorer, you think as long as he doesn't take dick, it's great for a man to want to suck cock, that's great, we need to accept that, we need to celebrate that.

>>5001

>>implying I'm a Catholic

>Jej.

Never implied anything of the sort, Ivan

>God holds secular authority as well as spiritual. By rejecting the former, you partially delegitimize the latter.

what are you even talking about anymore

>>5022

Gawd. If you have ever masturbated you are on par with sodomites and zoofiles. Scriptural fact. Not to mention you are committing a sin of anger against me, while I am committing a sin of pride pointing this out to you. You are no better than sodomites.

>>5022

>Read my words very carefully: Kill yourself

If nothing else, we're in full agreement there.

>what are you even talking about anymore

God's authority exists both spiritually, in the teachings themselves, and physically, through the church as an established secular institution. Not only does the organized church provide a physical link from the original apostles of Christ to the clergy today and I should think on /monarchy/ the benefits of a long-standing tradionalist structure is self-evident, the secular authority of the church serves to keep interpretation of the word of God at least somewhat unified and coherent. More importantly, it serves to ensure that the traditions of the church are followed and not subverted. Because it is so intrinsic to enforcing the will of God on Earth, it can be said that the church as an institution is the will of God on Earth. Therefore, if you abandon the church, you are abandoning the word of God, and subverting the mechanism used to keep the enforcement of his will correct. Moreover, every schism/abandonment of the church challenges the notion of the church as a sacred institution, making subsequent generations more likely to split further, until you're left with ten thousand islands of isolated special-snowflake churches, which incidentally is exactly what we have today. Further, because schisms demystify the church and its sacred status, the traditions and customs of the church become less important as well. And that's how you get lesbian bishops who want to remove crosses, clergies that consider it their duty to marry fags, and those immensely faggy "One Human Family" pro-rapefugee yard signs.The Protestant Reformation should be opposed for the same reason our resident "STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS" poster believes even the idea of regicide should be opposed–normalizing something which should be all-but-unthinkable only creates a host of problems down the line.

>>5023

x—D

>>5024

>the church as an established secular institution

That isn't what secular means. A "secular church" means a non-religious church, which is essentially just a way of saying apostate church.

>the secular authority of the church serves to keep interpretation of the word of God at least somewhat unified and coherent

The job of the clergy as regards unity is not to unify interpretation, but doctrine. These are related obviously, but the difference is important.

>subverting the mechanism used to keep the enforcement of his will correct

The church is the gathering of the believers for the worship of God, not a spiritual police force. The role of the ministers is to administer the word and sacrament, but the administration of the law is the province of the magistrates. Christ did not give the apostles swords. My point is proven by history, in that the great councils were not called by bishops, but by order of Caesar, and the Reformation was not self-imposed (in the majority of cases), but came down from the Crown through the principle of cuius regio, eius religio.

>And that's how you get lesbian bishops who want to remove crosses, clergies that consider it their duty to marry fags, and those immensely faggy "One Human Family" pro-rapefugee yard signs

No, it simply is not. That is caused not by schisms (indeed it causes churches to break), but by deteriorating faith in the word of God and embrace of modernism. The solution is not to embrace some vague tradition (least of all a tradition utterly foreign to western nations), but to embrace God's word.

>The Protestant Reformation should be opposed for the same reason

To oppose something which is emphatically the truth out of servitude to a false tradition would be the heights of modernism. This is not how our ancestors reasoned, they followed what they were convinced was the truth for its own sake, and we ought to do likewise, in service to truth.

I am not a "traditionalist" for tradition's sake, I do not support tradition because it is traditional, but simply wish for the world to go back to a state when its instincts were still intact, before we had homos publically flaunting that they rape children and receiving praise for it, before we had golden retriever girls talking about how beautiful and inspiring transgender freaks are. Modernism is a death cult, and I would prefer we all go on living. Nicholas II was all around a very poor Tsar, but he is rightly so popular today simply because he was the martyr of the pre-modern world. The death of a king at the hands of communists, I can think of no better icon of the West's decline under modernity's madness than that.

>normalizing something which should be all-but-unthinkable

The Protestant Reformation was a revival of the churches of Europe toward a biblical character, purging all the heretical and idolatrous novelties which popped up over the centuries. Not only should it not be unthinkable, it should be the standard, and if the modernist churches had a similar reformation, they would become model churches.

>>5058

The denotative definition of "secular" is "of or pertaining to the physical world," and that was the method in which I was using it here. The church has worldly power as well as spiritual.

>The job of the clergy as regards unity is not to unify interpretation, but doctrine.

Conceded, but that doesn't change my driving point, that a top-down and established tradition discourages severe deviations from what is correct.

>That is caused not by schisms (indeed it causes churches to break), but by deteriorating faith in the word of God and embrace of modernism

But modernism consistently has more influence in the protestant denominations than others. The Catholic church has some, but decidedly less than others, and has made at least a token effort to stick to its traditions. The Orthodoxy has made almost no concessions at all, comparatively speaking, despite having suffered under 70 years of Marxist influence. There's a pretty clear correlation between the rigidness of a church's doctrine and its vulnerability to modernist subversions.

>The solution is not to embrace some vague tradition (least of all a tradition utterly foreign to western nations)

I'll grant you that the Orthodox Church as it exists now is a little too far removed from Western Europe to be embraced by them en masse. But tradition of some sort absolutely is the answer–rigid, multigenerational institutions create a bulwark against marxist influence.

>I am not a "traditionalist" for tradition's sake, I do not support tradition because it is traditional

Tradition for tradition's sake is one of the most important aspects of the church, because the very idea of an exclusive tradition runs antithesis to marxist ideals. I would have thought monarchists would be more amenable to that idea than mosts.

>>5014

Don't get me wrong, I am not fine with the current law. But in the world at the moment our laws are one of the strictest and this is admirable. There is a significant push from the national and international left to liberalise, so this compromise is something we should hold on to, because it is simply infinitely better than any politically possible alternative.

>>5004

Because murdering someone with Dawn syndrome is murder. Also Dawn syndrome is not even life threatening, the abortion of foetuses with Dawn syndrome is a loophole in the current legislation that is being utilised for murder. Out of the 1047 abortions in Poland in 2016, 37% was due to Dawn syndrome and only one because of rape.

>>5065

Sorry, 1098 abortions.

>>5062

>The church has worldly power as well as spiritual

God has authority over the world, but the church is to minister the spiritual.

>a top-down and established tradition discourages severe deviations from what is correct

To be sure, enforcement of monolithic doctrine by an overarching ecclesiastical authority will produce unity, but that is exactly what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has, and I doubt we'll start pointing to them as a good example of Christianity any time soon.

>But modernism consistently has more influence in the protestant denominations than others

That has nothing to do with some deficiency in us (indeed, we have the strongest defense because we give a passioned defense from the bible, not just an empty appeal to tradition), but simply from geography, which led our churches to bear the brunt of modernism. Our doctrines were and are plenty rigid, the problem is their rebellion is predicated on unbelief

>The Catholic church has some, but decidedly less than others

Keep dreaming. Sure, Rome does not yet have transgender priests, but I give it a decade. The fact of the matter is that monolithic hierarchy enables a more rapid apostasy, since there is so much less that needs to be subverted to take the whole. Our churches have still not fallen entirely after a hundred years, but theirs will take just one or two popes.

>The Orthodoxy has made almost no concessions at all

That is quickly changing as your church spreads west

>despite having suffered under 70 years of Marxist influence

That's the cause, and it has also caused your worship to devolve into dead ritual. As the eastern Europeans react against communism they embrace their traditional religion, except not in their hearts.

>Tradition for tradition's sake is one of the most important aspects of the church, because the very idea of an exclusive tradition runs antithesis to marxist ideals

Pederasty was tradition for the ancient Greeks. I don't think that requires any further extrapolation to prove my point

>>2308

The RCC =/= The living Church

>Not wanting the one man to rule as both king and "pope."

Every notable monarch society before the Catholics messed up had this.

>>5080

>but that is exactly what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has, and I doubt we'll start pointing to them as a good example of Christianity any time soon.

As LARPy and annoying as the Mormons are, they're one of the least degenerate subcultures in the US. The LDS church has served its purpose in helping the Mormons maintain high-trust communities, with a strong in-group preference and a minimum of libertine behavior.

>from geography

Somehow that geography hasn't harmed the Catholic parishes in the same countries. And the geography argument fails completely in the US.

>That is quickly changing as your church spreads west

I haven't seen it yet. Even if it does, Orthodoxy structure takes the best of both worlds—a strong hierarchy and rigid doctrine, but a high degree of lateral autonomy for each subdivision. As such, the church is more than capable of surviving major upsets because of this strong-but-decentralized system. Case in point, the church survived the fall of Constantinople just fine, and the Patriarch of Constantinople having to kiss Turkish ass has no effect on the other patriarchates.

>it has also caused your worship to devolve into dead ritual. As the eastern Europeans react against communism they embrace their traditional religion, except not in their hearts.

This is a baseless accusation, with no causality to it, and has no basis in reality.

>Pederasty was tradition for the ancient Greeks.

Facetious sophistry. Obviously the original tradition must encourage low time-preference and other positive behaviors to be effective. Fortunately, libertine communities tend not to last very long, so libertine traditions will select themselves out of the market with time.

>>5088

>they're one of the least degenerate subcultures in the US

What are we gonna start using "least degenerate" as the measure of truth? It's not even true anymore, porn addiction and sodomy are becoming extremely prevalent among Mormons

>Somehow that geography hasn't harmed the Catholic parishes in the same countries

You're clueless.

>And the geography argument fails completely in the US

Oh, you mean the place that maintains the largest Christian population of any country in the world? Yeah, I suppose it does fail in that respect

>a strong hierarchy and rigid doctrine, but a high degree of lateral autonomy for each subdivision

As you have defined it so far these things are mutually exclusive since if there is an overarching hierarchy enforcing monolithic doctrine then opposing beliefs simply cannot co-exist in that system for very obvious reasons. So, if your false traditions are forced on the lower churches by the hierarchs, then all that is required to totally subvert every one of your churches is to subvert the few hierarchs, and then modernism will be your tradition.

>the Patriarch of Constantinople having to kiss Turkish ass has no effect on the other patriarchates

We aren't talking about a local tyranny forcing itself over the regional church, we're talking about a true poison, a spiritual cancer, and it will metastasize from one limb to the whole body because it corrupts from within, and the only way to stop its spread is to excise the infected portions.

>Facetious sophistry

No a demonstration of the absurdity of the position you chose to adopt. If you place yourself into the ancient Greek context, and you accept the "tradition for tradition's sake" idea, you have absolutely no basis whatsoever to condemn their abominable acts, because you have cut yourself off from it, you have already exalted tradition above truth.

>>5084

how?

>>5130

say more

>>2282

Obviously. It was a total violation of the Divine Right of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and of the Rock of the Church, the HH Patriarch of the West, Bishop of Rome, and Holy Pontiff, the Pope.

Anybody who denies the Protestant Chimpout has nothing to do with Leftism is a liar or in denial. The actuality is that by spreading word that any Nigger don't need any structure, tradition, authority from their pope for proper spiritual practice led to further degeneration both spirit (Amerifat church with snake worship) and secular (the war on kingship).

>>5352

I'll wait for you to name a White Protestant country isn't getting cucked to death.

>>5355

Also, it can be argued that John Calvin's self-flagellating views regarding predestination are the precursor to the white guilt that permeates society today, making a Protestant the first cuck.

>hurr I dun need traditions, structure, and someone of man's world to answer

t. protestant

>>5362

>wanting unification

you dont differ much from globalists

>>5354

USA is more Christian and traditional than any popish nation in the world today

>>5374

Speaking on behalf of the Catholic Church and the role of Emperors in Western civilization, my ideal would have been the respect for the temporal authority of emperors and the spiritual domain of the church in the whole realm of sovereignty. This is a long-standing issue that re-occurs everywhere and goes beyond just Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant. The Divine Right of Kings and their temporal authority, to rule by the Grace of God, is constantly undermined for republican principles. Ideally, I do think a unified Christendom is ideal.

>Dante Alighieri and De Monarchia studying the temporal authority of the Emperor and the Pope. Not to mention the Divine Comedy.

>Emperors and their confrontation with the coronation process to 'lose their crowns', so to speak.

>King Louis XIV and the conflicts with the Catholic Church as a temporal political authority

>Stuarts and the conflicts with the Puritans

I think the Reformation was a continuation down this path and don't really hold animosity between Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians, but for the unity of Christendom in the spirit of Christ.

>>5373

>Half-Nigger President

>Zionist President who let his daughter marry a Jew

>Trannies

>Getting filled with Pablos

>56% White

>Not being a monarchy

>Sided with Stalin

>>5377

Yet it's still whiter and more Christian than your country, Muhammad

>>5388

56%

>>5391

245,532,000