Papacy: Monarchy or Oligarchy

[porthos11]

What are we really talking about here? The Pope as the head of the Catholic Church or as head of state of Vatican City?

 

[newenglandsun]

What are we really talking about here? The Pope as the head of the Catholic Church or as head of state of Vatican City?

as head of catholic church…thanks for clarifying…i didn’t realize the two were different…

wait…maybe that’s why my professor stated it was like an oligarchy (in reference to the religious head of the church) and cameron states it is a monarchy (in reference to political power based on the context of his work).

 

[YoungTradCath]

What are we really talking about here? The Pope as the head of the Catholic Church or as head of state of Vatican City?

Well I was just trying to add a bit of nuance which, as usual, just confuses things. The Pope wears three hats: Pope, Bishop of Rome, monarch of Vatican City.

 

[CutlerB]

Well I was just trying to add a bit of nuance which, as usual, just confuses things. The Pope wears three hats: Pope, Bishop of Rome, monarch of Vatican City.

If only they were still crowns.

 

[mardukm]

Well, not exactly. That might be the more contemporary interpretation though (silly revisionists).

Classically, absolute monarchs ruled by divine right (called the Divine Right of Kings), which says that the monarch is not subject to any earthly authority. The selection of the monarch and the legitimacy of the monarch come from God, to whom the monarch is subject. In reality, a DRR (Divine Right Ruler) was obliged to follow God’s law, which gave a certain amount of power (mostly via influence) to the local hierarchy of bishops and the Pope.

The absolute part of an absolute monarchy never allowed them to challenge or change anything divine, because it was from God that they derived power. Alfred the Great would have been an absolute monarch, and from what we know he felt it was his duty to spread Christianity to the whole of Great Britain (or at least the part he dreamed to be England).

Well, we know that absolute monarchies went the way of the dodo, despite their claims to divine right. They simply did not work, despite the ideal. An absolute monarch could do anything he wanted not contrary to God’s law, but the problem was that absolute monarchs often assumed their human laws were God’s laws, even if those human laws were unjust. To throw the papacy in with that lot is inappropriate and dangerous.

So it was not that there was revisionism about what “absolute monarchy” means. Revisionism is not aligned with reality, but rather ties to create its own reality. In distinction, it was the reality that defined what “absolute monarchy” means. Down through the ages, absolute monarchs have been unjust because they ruled by their will alone, despite the ideals of divine-right rulership. In fact, many of these divine-right rulers did not act very Christian at all. So “absolute monarchy” is a distinct appellation attached to the idea of a ruler who ruled by his will alone, and regardless of any law.

There is nothing “absolute” about the power of the papacy.

Blessings

 

[CutlerB]

Well, we know that absolute monarchies went the way of the dodo, despite their claims to divine right. They simply did not work, despite the ideal. An absolute monarch could do anything he wanted not contrary to God’s law, but the problem was that absolute monarchs often assumed their human laws were God’s laws, even if those human laws were unjust. To throw the papacy in with that lot is inappropriate and dangerous.

So it was not that there was revisionism about what “absolute monarchy” means. Revisionism is not aligned with reality, but rather ties to create its own reality. In distinction, it was the reality that defined what “absolute monarchy” means. Down through the ages, absolute monarchs have been unjust because they ruled by their will alone, despite the ideals of divine-right rulership. In fact, many of these divine-right rulers did not act very Christian at all. So “absolute monarchy” is a distinct appellation attached to the idea of a ruler who ruled by his will alone, and regardless of any law.

There is nothing “absolute” about the power of the papacy.

Blessings

Considered as a temporal power, I will have to object. The Pope in his capacity as the head of the State of Vatican City is an Absolute Monarch. An elected one, but still. The deficiencies of former Absolute Monarchies, such as France, do not mean that the Papacy in its temporal manifestation is not one. As the saying goes, abusus non tollit usum.

 

[porthos11]

Well, we know that absolute monarchies went the way of the dodo, despite their claims to divine right. They simply did not work, despite the ideal. An absolute monarch could do anything he wanted not contrary to God’s law, but the problem was that absolute monarchs often assumed their human laws were God’s laws, even if those human laws were unjust. To throw the papacy in with that lot is inappropriate and dangerous.

So it was not that there was revisionism about what “absolute monarchy” means. Revisionism is not aligned with reality, but rather ties to create its own reality. In distinction, it was the reality that defined what “absolute monarchy” means. Down through the ages, absolute monarchs have been unjust because they ruled by their will alone, despite the ideals of divine-right rulership. In fact, many of these divine-right rulers did not act very Christian at all. So “absolute monarchy” is a distinct appellation attached to the idea of a ruler who ruled by his will alone, and regardless of any law.

There is nothing “absolute” about the power of the papacy.

Blessings

While this is true to a degree in his capacity as the Vicar of Christ and the successor of St. Peter, in that he is the servant of divine law and tradition, this is not the case in his capacity as the Head of State of Vatican City. In that capacity, his power IS absolute; in fact, Vatican City is the last absolute European monarchy.