Author Topic: How come the Church approved killing and deposing kings before (Read 649 times)

Änσnymσus · « **on:** July 17, 2019, 04:56:22 PM »

I've already read of several kings in the past that were killed by someone else and the Church solemnly crowed the "new king."

Henry VII killed Richard III. Robert the Bruce also killed someone else (not a king I think, but some noble I think) and the bishops supported him.

I forget the other ones right now, and I will look into it later, but the point is that all throughout the Middle Ages, kings were getting killed and the victors crowned and recognized as legitimate by the Church. Basically, governments were overthrown all the time.

Compare that to the Cristero situation where they had the upper hand and were at the brink of overthrowing the satanic government, only to be told by Pope Pius XI to surrender and get slaughtered.

Nowadays, if a people or country were to overthrow an evil government that commits genocide and untold crimes against its own people, it would surely be condemned as "sinful" and bad.

When did this change come about?

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #1 on:** July 17, 2019, 05:26:50 PM »

Ok let me rephrase that: I'm not sure if the Church directly approved of the murder of a king, but what I meant was that this sort of thing happened all the time before and the conqueror would be recognized as a legitimate governor by the Church.

But in more recent times, probably since after the Protestant revolt, overthrowing governments, even if they were evil and godless, was not approved by the Church.

forlorn · « **Reply #2 on:** July 17, 2019, 06:27:41 PM »

I'm very interested in the answer to this question. What the Church did to the Cristeros was nothing short of a betrayal, in my opinion.

forlorn · « **Reply #3 on:** July 17, 2019, 06:31:40 PM »

Part of the answer lies in that, in both the examples you gave, they were fighting against an illegitimate government or invasion. Richard III had deposed his nephew, and Robert the Bruce was defending against an English invasion which the Church had condemned. So neither Henry VII or Robert the Bruce were fighting against the legitimate government, whereas the Cristeros arguably war. Their rebellion was allowed due to the government suppressing the Catholic faith and its tyranny, but when the government offered to come to terms with them the Church bade they put down their arms as the government were willing(well claiming to be at least) to amend their tyrannies that started the war. Of course the government was lying, and the Church was incredibly naive in its decision, and Mexico has suffered for it ever since. But the Pope is not infallible in matters of politics, so mistakes are made.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #4 on:** July 17, 2019, 08:56:02 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on July 17, 2019, 06:31:40 PM

Part of the answer lies in that, in both the examples you gave, they were fighting against an illegitimate government or invasion. Richard III had deposed his nephew, and Robert the Bruce was defending against an English invasion which the Church had condemned. So neither Henry VII or Robert the Bruce were fighting against the legitimate government, whereas the Cristeros arguably war. Their rebellion was allowed due to the government suppressing the Catholic faith and its tyranny, but when the government offered to come to terms with them the Church bade they put down their arms as the government were willing(well claiming to be at least) to amend their tyrannies that started the war. Of course the government was lying, and the Church was incredibly naive in its decision, and Mexico has suffered for it ever since. But the Pope is not infallible in matters of politics, so mistakes are made.

That makes sense now.

What I saw didn't mention any of that.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #5 on:** July 18, 2019, 05:51:32 AM »

Quote from: forlorn on July 17, 2019, 06:31:40 PM

Part of the answer lies in that, in both the examples you gave, they were fighting against an illegitimate government or invasion. Richard III had deposed his nephew, and Robert the Bruce was defending against an English invasion which the Church had condemned. So neither Henry VII or Robert the Bruce were fighting against the legitimate government, whereas the Cristeros arguably war. Their rebellion was allowed due to the government suppressing the Catholic faith and its tyranny, but when the government offered to come to terms with them the Church bade they put down their arms as the government were willing(well claiming to be at least) to amend their tyrannies that started the war. Of course the government was lying, and the Church was incredibly naive in its decision, and Mexico has suffered for it ever since. But the Pope is not infallible in matters of politics, so mistakes are made.

arguably were*
woops

Author Topic: How come the Church approved killing and deposing kings before (Read 649 times)

Änσnymσus

How come the Church approved killing and deposing kings before

Änσnymσus

Re: How come the Church approved killing and deposing kings before

forlorn

Re: How come the Church approved killing and deposing kings before

forlorn

Re: How come the Church approved killing and deposing kings before

Änσnymσus

Re: How come the Church approved killing and deposing kings before

Änσnymσus

Re: How come the Church approved killing and deposing kings before