No king without the appropriate (sacred) charismata in my opinion. For me, as a Christian, it's the grace of God that causes a king to be a real king. It's what caused pagan kings to bend knee to the faith because they had never seen such a thing. In reality, the pagan kings of Europe were just warlords and chieftains. It was different in the past and I think it's near impossible to describe an equivalence today.

In the 'olden days,' you were anointed to do something and you were anointed by the Church (hence the doctrine of the divine right of kings was already a reversal of the reality and one reason why the Popes thought they could depose Christian (anointed) kings). You were a defender of the flock. The people of God's bodyguard. You can't inherit that: you are given it.

Last edited by Timocrates (3/22/2016 6:27 pm)

iwpoe wrote:

Timocrates wrote:

No king without the appropriate (sacred) charismata in my opinion. For me, as a Christian, it's the grace of God that causes a king to be a real king. It's what caused pagan kings to bend knee to the faith because they had never seen such a thing. In reality, the pagan kings of Europe were just warlords and chieftains. It was different in the past and I think it's near impossible to describe an equivalence today.

I'm willing to believe non-Christian kings can be divinely legitimate as an aspect of God's benevolence, but I do think that it's more appropriate that some form of subordination of the king to the mysteries of the world be at least formally evoked, since one may conquer but one cannot rule for or by one's own glory.

Well, as the Church has often taught, there is no such thing as a king or royal power unless the man can rule himself. Pharaohs and Caesars come and go. Nothing stands in equivalence to the Christian king. Their glory was not of themselves: whenever they thought so, they were humbled. Their glory is God's grace.
 

Last edited by Timocrates (3/29/2016 12:49 pm)