I remember reading the section about government in Fr. Fagothey's Right and Reason. He favors the popular consent theory that says that the people choose their leaders and that the authority from God is given to the leaders through the people, whereas the patriarchy theory says that a suitable leader receives authority directly from God. Would not the authority really always be given directly by God regardless of how the state is formed though?

What would be the correct theory then if not the popular consent or patriarchal theories?

What would be the correct theory then if not the popular consent or patriarchal theories?

Think about this: the pure mass of people are strongly led by stupidity and simplicity.

I am not quite clear on how the five Republics in France, which could only be installed due to regicide, have any legitimacy. Why are they not like the future government of Antichrist -- illegitimate?

Did the Bourbon Restoration kind of wash clean the post-revolutionary governments, giving them legitimacy?

There are many similarities between the revolutionary principles of the "Enlightenment" with regard to the State and that of the Protestants with regard to the Church. The Protestants denied that the Church, a perfect society, had a monarchical constitution or true authority to bind the faithful. They held that her ministers were also mere representatives of the people who appointed them, rather than ordained by God with power to rule.

The Sillonists censured by Pope St.Pius X later repeated similar errors with regard to civil power, all the better to effectively remove God and His law from legal, social and public discourse. Michael Davies book on the martyrs in Vendee, France is aptly named "For Altar and Throne". Many traditionally Christian countries had kings and lords and one of Christ's great Messianic titles in Scripture, "King of kings and Lord of lords" was a visible reality in society.

We seem to be agreed that the patriarchal theory of authority is the right one.  But, as should be expected, the devil is in the details.

If we follow the historic Catholic understanding of the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul on every June 29th as our "Second Easter," then our politics together with our temporal civilization generally should be oriented to the Divine Revelation about Eternal Rome as the New Jerusalem that is contained within that most holy feastday.  Our Catholic politics is the historic politics of Catholic Rome, the New Jerusalem of the New Israel who are, specifically, us.

Sts. Peter and Paul, according to our religion, received the Divine Revelation that Rome is the temporal vehicle of the New Testament and Church of Christ on earth, the Mystical Body of God.  Therefore when Catholic Rome has taught us that our Roman Emperors have received their election through their popular acclimation by the ROMAN CATHOLIC people immediately before their elevation to the Imperial dignity, we are as Roman Catholics most seriously obligated to accept this political wisdom as from the very Voice of God.  Our Holy Roman Emperors are the divinely ordained Vice-regents of God Almighty on earth.  

To disrespect this truth is to disrespect the DIVINE REVELATION of our Second Easter that is the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul.

In addition to the elective monarchies of our Roman Emperors and Roman Popes, we also have the political inheritance from the divine revelation of Sts. Peter and Paul of our national hereditary monarchies and aristocracies, our smaller aristocratic Roman Republics (like Venice, the Dutch Republic and the Old American Republic) and, last but by no means least, our great tradition of ROMAN dictatorship that has always been invoked by the Roman Catholics in times of greatest emergency and danger.

None of this accords with the views of Jacques Maritain nor of his sly partisans like Dr. James J. Walsh who covered over their Marxist sympathies with a great deal of pseudo-conservative verbiage.  But when the time came they were eager to fight to the death alongside their beloved "Dear Uncle Joe" Stalin in order to massacre and crush the innocent Catholics of Europe and South America.  In the U.S. the battle lines were drawn between the magnificently loyal Cardinal O'Connor of Boston and that disloyal and disgusting male prostitute who went by the undeserved label Cardinal Spellman of New York.  (Jєω York more like!)

Since I'm so foolish as to enter this political minefield I had better also attempt to address some of the views of our out-of-control anti-German Francophiles.  If we TRULY love Catholic France, then we should have grave doubts concerning the claims of "Louis XX" to the throne of Catholic France.  In particular, he has freely chosen to chain his star to the fortunes of that Hungarian Jєω and Christ-killer Nicholas Sarkozy and to Sarkozy's brainless Italian whore, "what's her name."  "Louis XX" also suffers from decidedly unsavory Spanish family connections, as the troubled grandson of Francisco Franco and cousin of Juan Carlos, the horrifying reigning King of Spain (who is the Number One champion on earth of the Spanish Socialist/gαy Marriage Party, just for starters...), along with all the misery such family relationships must entail.  Poor "Louis XX" has been reduced to marrying a commoner daughter of rich Venezuelan bankers and living in New York (Jєω York!) in his ignoble pursuit of the "Almighty Dollar."

Whereas H.R.H. Henri d'Orleans, the Comte de Paris and Duc de France, and his sons ACT like proper French Catholic aristocrats and royals with proper noble anti-capitalist politics that are at the furthest remove from the heretical Neo-Liberal Market Bolshevism and blood-drenched anti-Catholic militarism of "Louis XX" and his Novus Ordo and Jєω confreres.

If our Francophile bloggers truly love France, they should JOIN TOGETHER with us to form the Catholic armies and militias to put H.R.H. Henri d'Orleans ON THE THRONE of France where His Majesty so rightly belongs!  They should GET REAL, support the Camelots du Roi and practice some MILITARY DISCIPLINE to restore the true legitimist Bourbons to their rightful place as hereditary rulers of our most Catholic Royaume de France.

France already has a Roman Catholic King of the Royal House of Bourbon.  The true Roman Catholic politics would be to FIGHT for him.  

Since I'm so foolish as to enter this political minefield I had better also attempt to address some of the views of our out-of-control anti-German Francophiles.  If we TRULY love Catholic France, then we should have grave doubts concerning the claims of "Louis XX" to the throne of Catholic France.

If we truly love Catholic France, we should respect the fundamental laws of the Kingdom, which supersede any treaty stipulations on the question of the succession.  No, assuming that the line of Louis XVII did not continue and that Louis XX is a true Bourbon and not, as it is said, a descendant of the less illustrious house of Puíg y Molto by way of Isabella the Whore, he is the King of France, no matter what his behaviour or political opinions.  Fortunately, there is good reason to doubt that the line of Louis XVII failed and that Louis-Alphonse is a true Bourbon through patrilineal descent.

In particular, he has freely chosen to chain his star to the fortunes of that Hungarian Jєω and Christ-killer Nicholas Sarkozy and to Sarkozy's brainless Italian whore, "what's her name."  "Louis XX" also suffers from decidedly unsavory Spanish family connections, as the troubled grandson of Francisco Franco...

First and foremost, all of that is irrelevant from the standpoint of legitimate succession.  Secondly, what's wrong with being the grandson of General Franco ?  Sure, he was not the best leader, particularly in the way he dealt with the Carlists, but how is being the grandson of el Caudillo "unsavory" ?

...and cousin of Juan Carlos, the horrifying reigning King of Spain (who is the Number One champion on earth of the Spanish Socialist/gαy Marriage Party, just for starters...), along with all the misery such family relationships must entail.

Once again, completely irrelevant.  Besides, Juan Carlos and Luís Alfonso are on rather bad terms.  What truly matters is whether or not either one of them are true Bourbon dynastics and whether or not Luís is indeed the Eldest of the Capetiens, in which case he is indisputably the King of France and nothing can change it.  As for Juan Carlos, the Carlist succession is a different matter, but suffice it to say I do not believe he is the King of Spain.

Poor "Louis XX" has been reduced to marrying a commoner daughter of rich Venezuelan bankers and living in New York (Jєω York!) in his ignoble pursuit of the "Almighty Dollar."

Irrelevant.  In French law, the King can marry a commoner, noblewoman, princess, queen, or any woman, and His Most Christian Majesty's sons are still fully royal.  Besides, marrying the pretty daughters of incredibly wealthy men with few years ahead of them and no sons to inherit their estate is an old royal French skill that, according to the King's station and the Roman Catechism, is not to be blamed.  When Maria Margarita's father dies, Luís will be a force to be reckoned with who will bring a lot of attention to the cause of Bourbon legitimacy and the French Crown.  I personally do not believe that he is the heir to the Throne of the Lilies, but he can still be of service to it, perhaps even in spite of himself.

Whereas H.R.H. Henri d'Orleans, the Comte de Paris and Duc de France, and his sons ACT like proper French Catholic aristocrats and royals with proper noble anti-capitalist politics that are at the furthest remove from the heretical Neo-Liberal Market Bolshevism and blood-drenched anti-Catholic militarism of "Louis XX" and his Novus Ordo and Jєω confreres.

Oh, please.  You should really consider cutting it out.  Henri d'Orléans, the pretended "Duc de France," is the Grand Master of the Grand Orient of France in Paris.  He is just like his wicked forefathers -- a Freemason, an agent of the devil, and a cutthroat pursuant of the rightful throne of his elder cousins.

If our Francophile bloggers truly love France, they should JOIN TOGETHER with us to form the Catholic armies and militias to put H.R.H. Henri d'Orleans ON THE THRONE of France where His Majesty so rightly belongs!

That man rightly belongs far away from France unless he is locked up.  He is neither the heir to the throne, nor worthy of our respect, nor "His Majesty."  His Highness, the Duc d'Orléans, is the head of the Lodge of the Grand Orient of France and his ancestor Philippe was the crucial swing vote in favour of the murder of his own cousion, Louis XVI.  His legal case for being King is worthless, and he disinherited his son from the succession -- illegally -- because of mental defects.  He clearly does not respect the fundamental laws of France except insofar as he could be their beneficiary.  Catholics should have little to do with him.

They should GET REAL, support the Camelots du Roi and practice some MILITARY DISCIPLINE to restore the true legitimist Bourbons to their rightful place as hereditary rulers of our most Catholic Royaume de France.

I agree about practicing military discipline, assuming one's duty of state permits it, but the King will be restored by the inscrutable design of Providence at the predestined moment, after France is punished again for her crimes, not through the efforts of newspaper boys in the streets of Paris and Marseille.  The prophecies and the history of the Church pretty clearly indicate this.  Besides, you rhetoric is empty.  Do you actually have any concrete plans for the restoration of the Eldest Son of the Church to His Majesty's throne, or are you counting on others having one ?  And what if he annexes large portions of Germany after a Catholic France is attacked by other European countries, and cινιℓ ωαr spills into Spain and Italy ?  Would you be happy if the borders of France extended to the Weser River ?  For some reason, I doubt it !  

France already has a Roman Catholic King of the Royal House of Bourbon.  The true Roman Catholic politics would be to FIGHT for him.  

Certainly, but it is not Henri d'Orléans and the true King of France is not helped by Henri's malign influences.

Thank you, everyone, for your input.

I understand now that Fr. Fagothey was then off the mark on this point. I was not sure what to make of what he said, for I had known already that the power of authority came from God and not from the people, even if the people did elect their leader. It is simply then an error to think that the power of authority comes from God through the people.


I have these questions now:


Was such an error actually held by St. Robert Bellarmine?


And did such teaching of his actually have any influence on U.S. Declaration of Independence?


I remember that there is also a section in the children's catechism called My Catholic Faith that says something to the effect that St. Robert Bellarmine's teaching had influence on the American Revolution's principles. I think it even mentions St. Thomas Aquinas. I see that that section is in error, and it is tragic to have such in a children's catechism. One more question then: What would be good arguments against this strange effort to make American principles seem as if they had influence from St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Thomas Aquinas? I did not get to see some of this thread still, and so I am sorry if I ask questions right now that may have answers already shown in this thread.

Thank you all again!