The empty Imperial throne

Reading some of the encyclicals of previous Popes such as Pope Gregory XVI in "Mirari Vos" one gets the impression that previous Popes did not approve of "democratic" forms of government of limited or universal franchise. It preferred monarchical or rule by a select few of presumably intelligent and wise people. In a monarchy if a country is fortunate to have a good, wise and strong King then all society both the good,bad, not so good and not so bad benefit. However in a modern democracy such as in Britain, U.S.A. Ireland etc. different powerful lobby groups such as big business, pressure groups,sectional interests and the media seem to have an inordinate amount of influence. Is this fair? Do the poor, badly educated and underprivileged gain, I think not. Therefore is not a country ruled by a wise, good King or benign Christian dictator not more fortunate than a country like a so called "democracy" where they are many competing voices shouting to be heard and it tends to be might that triumphs rather than the common good. Comments please.

...

1. 
   John Fitzgerald9:34 pm

   The 'haunting' that Tomberg speaks of has been around a long time. The absent Emperor was keenly felt in Western Europe - spiritually and psychologically - after the fall of Rome, leading eventually to the rise of Charlemagne and birth of the Holy Roman Empire. The archetype holds good in the East as well. Many Russians, of course, view Moscow as the Third Rome, after Imprrial Rome and Byzantium, and Tsar Nicholas II as the last Roman Emperor (so far).

   I think the loss of the Imperial principle in the West has been frankly disastrous. It's deprived lay Catholic men of a genuinely masculine Catholicism and opened the floodgates for the feminisation of the Faith. That said, John, I don't believe a new Catholic Emperor is at all out of the question. His advent could be closer than we think. The Imperial archetype, as Tomberg knew, holds truth, and truth never goes away - it never stops being real, never stops being truth. It would probably take a great crash of some kind - war, economic crisis, etc - to bring about the radical spiritual and political reorientation required, but as I say, I honestly don't think it's all that far fetched.

   It wasn't all that long ago, after all, that the Prayer for the Roman Emperor was removed from the Missal (1955, I think), which, funnily enough, is around the time that JRR Tolkien published 'The Return of the King', which is all about the restoration of sacred monarchy. Fantasy, prophecy or both? We'll see!

...

Speaking as a lay Catholic man of 51 years. I agree that our Holy faith has been feminised and made to look ridiculous. I believe that one of the major obstacles to evangelisation today especially amongst working class young men is the absence of a strong manful, masculine identity among our Catholic clergy.Many of our priest are elderly and have become spiritually castrated. Men are made to look stupid, inadequate and incompetent in today's feminised culture and I believe that this may be a contributing factor to high suicide rates among young males and also violent attacks and rapes on women. I am not trying to excuse suicide or attacks or rapes on women but trying to understand where all this anger, frustration and violence among men is coming from. I think Satan being the cunning angel he is knows this and is using radical feminism to undermine men and pit the sexes against each other. The lack of genuine male role models both in the Church,politics and society at large is a big problem and a spiritual problem at that. Our bishops,priests,fathers brothers have become emasculated. This I think is one of the major factors why Catholicism has become wimpish, weak and unable to evangelise.

Reply

...

...

Bogle seems to imply that Emperor Otto I had the right to remove Pope John XII from power after a "council" had declared him self-deposed. This is clearly false. A pope can automatically lose his office through public schism, heresy or apostasy, but John XII's misconduct seems to have been of a different kind (adultery etc.). It is clear that Leo VIII was initially an antipope; however, he may later have become a true pope if it is true that Pope Benedict V recognized him.