Romania’s Prime Minister resigns after disagreement with the royal family | Royal Central

Romania’s Prime Minister Mihai Tudose resigned after losing the support from his own political party. Former Prime Minister Tudose recently decided to expel the royal family from Elisabeta Palace. This resulted in a statement from parliament speaker Liviu Dragnea and leader of the Social Democratic Party where it was announced that Prime Minister Tudose had signed his resignation.

Source: Romania’s Prime Minister resigns after disagreement with the royal family – Royal Central

Support for monarchy seems to be growing in a number of areas of the world, and one of these is certainly Romania!

“Last week, the Romanian royal family was ordered to evacuate the Elizabeth Palace before 5 February on the direct order of then Prime Minister Mihai Tudose. This created huge protests. Former Prime Minister Mihai Tudose, a former communist, lied publically to the press and said that the royal family had been using the castle without paying for it. These allegations were strongly denied in a statement by Crown Princess Margarita. The news was first reported internationally by “The International Monarchist Conference”.

“Parliament speaker Liviu Dragnea had declared himself a royalist and in favour of the Royal House of Romania. The fact that the Prime Minister lied about this and tried to have the royal family thrown out of the palace was condemned strongly by the majority of the parliament and speaker Dragnea. This has resulted in the ongoing political crisis.”

Most interesting!

Advertisements

Peter Hitchens: “We have chosen the wrong future.” | YouTube

Source: Peter Hitchens: “It’s over. Europe is doomed” – YouTube

Despite the rampant stupidity of the interviewer (and the clickbait title of this video, on YouTube – unless I missed something, I never once heard Peter Hitchens say “It’s over. Europe is doomed”) this is a very good and instructive video, which I wish more people would watch and take to heart!

One thing Hitchens did say, which I agree with 100%, is that “We have chosen the wrong future” – if, that is, by “we” is meant (as I know he did mean it) the political, social, and academic “elite.” We are not (yet, totally) stuck with our choice, however. We can re-choose. And I hope and pray we will!!!

(Peter Hitchens, by the way, is a remarkably sound-thinking man – like Sir Roger Scuton and a few others that still give me hope for Britain’s future!)

Secular Fundamentalism and the ravishing of Europe. © Gavin Ashenden | Gavin Ashenden

voltaire

 

Source: Secular Fundamentalism and the ravishing of Europe. © Gavin Ashenden – Gavin Ashenden

Sadly, the once-proud Church of England appears to be on its last legs, theologically and morally; however, there are still a few shining lights within it, bravely striving to hold back the darkness. One of these is former Queen’s Chaplain, Bishop Gavin Ashenden.

Sadly, he and those like him are very much in the minority, these days; however, he is at least doing his best to speak truth to power! As in this essay, where he describes the way in which the new secular fundamentalism (a.k.a. militant political correctness, a.k.a. cultural Marxism) is chipping away at Western values. He writes,

“It was probably pretty obvious that if you import Islamic culture in which women are subjugated, into a culture founded on Christian values, where all human beings are believed to be equally valuable, the conflict between these two value systems would sooner or later cause trouble.

“Numbers are the key to it. Sweden’s left wing government, supposedly deeply pro-feminist, has pursued a highly liberal immigration policy. So how has society changed as a result? The answer is that women have been seriously endangered…

“If the government of a country decides that the principle of mass immigration is more important that the safety and dignity of women, it has the right to put it to the people in a democracy, to allow them to accept or reject the project. It doesn’t have the right to suppress the facts or the truth.

“The problem we face in this clash of liberal values is that instead of looking for an answer to the problems the clash throws up, the political instinct has been to hide the truth; and in these cases to make women pay the price for it.”

The ostensibly “liberal” Left – which in recent decades has transmogrified into a bastion of secular fundamentalism, as Bishop Ashenden points out, and politically-correct orthodoxy – cannot indefinitely defend the indefensible: that bringing massive numbers of immigrants, who hold social, moral, and religious beliefs very much at odds with the values Western civilization has developed with no little blood, sweat, and tears over several millennia, is congruent with liberal ideas such as women’s rights. Sooner or later the house of cards will come crashing down.

Unfortunately, as Bishop Ashenden points out, when confronted with this reality, the political instinct of the European – and American – Left has been to hide the evidence. No, there is no concrete indication that the men who rape and molest women at public events in Sweden and Germany are asylum seekers… because the police and other officials are forbidden to record that information.

No, you can’t make “offensive” comments about Muslims on Facebook (at the risk of being arrested, in some supposedly “liberal democratic” European countries!) – even those engaged in grooming, sexually abusing, and trafficking in young white British girls – because that might lead to an open and honest debate about the wisdom of letting large numbers of them into Western nations. And so it goes…

Obviously, this sort of information cannot be kept under wraps forever. Sooner or later, it will become blindingly obvious to all but the most committed ideologues that the proverbial emperor is wearing no clothes. But by then a great deal of damage – possibly irreversible damage – will have been done to the cultures and people of Europe, and perhaps America as well. Indeed, we live in troubled times.

However, as my late mother would remind me, God is in charge. Things may seem chaotic, perhaps even hopeless, to us; but His power is infinite. We may not be able to do much, but we can at least pray!

De furore Sarraceni, Domine, libera nos…

Or perhaps I should say,

De furore civilibus, Domine, libera nos!

(“From the fury of the politicians, O Lord, deliver us!”)

An Integralist Manifesto by Edmund Waldstein | Articles | First Things

https://d2ipgh48lxx565.cloudfront.net/uploads/article_59b6e6b12624a.jpg?Expires=1518191286&Signature=Pg288gz--5wORXJ6uiYYUPoCzcF0oAvsxMqGbNGpedul3F45WS4JslW8H7fyEmW5iPeBYFShznncqdwJyv8KwIUbim85J8gA6KgoUWxnkwznP3tYkYGN80MaLVWYVCsVsPUcM61SjFEEk~EPaVUjLOgp0FSroah~3mOW7~sZyOPlxAKYqV3RX2418BPK7fBbHVKJbpdK-ntneM-rrPkQ3lEdHLjN4unoad3yBGhUwUUCsj4vqcwWVzJb7CFRfUmK5LdIdP428iaiagWKYf12d4eBSk9MUBBhkVvD-zgIyHlhvejp7STNxxQeIRxIGxD0KHFM0Ww0HRpY7L25VcFp-A__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIN7SVXNLPAOVDKZQ

Jones provides strong evidence to show that historians have too often distorted our view of the Middle Ages by projecting modern constructions back onto them. But he is not merely making a historical claim. He is also making a normative claim…

Source: An Integralist Manifesto by Edmund Waldstein | Articles | First Things

“Aided by a philosophical and theological sophistication that is unusual for his profession, Jones challenges our most basic assumptions as moderns. He [speaks] of “an integral vision which included all of social reality.” In this integral vision, “church” and “state” did not exist as separate institutions; rather, spiritual and temporal authority cooperated together within a single social whole for the establishment of an earthly peace, ordered to eternal salvation.

“Nor was there an “economy,” in the modern sense of a relatively autonomous system based on private property and contract. Rather, the use of material goods was thoroughly integrated into the peace. “State,” “church,” and “economy” were not merely underdeveloped, waiting to be discovered. They did not exist, and would have to be invented. The vision of social peace gave way to an idea of social life as a violent, primordial struggle for power, and of sovereignty as limiting that violence by monopolizing it…

“Jones provides strong evidence to show that historians have too often distorted our view of the Middle Ages by projecting modern constructions back onto them. But he is not merely making a historical claim. He is also making a normative claim: The construction of modern society with its system of separations between different social spheres was a bad development that inscribes false ideas into our very way of life. Conversely, the integration of spiritual and temporal corresponds to the truth about humanity as revealed in Christ, and is therefore demanded by Christian orthodoxy.”

Provocative claims? You betcha! But fascinating to me, both as an academic medievalist by training, and as a Christian clergyman… and to me, they carry the ring of truth. I have long thought, and often stated, that we have lost much by forgetting or willfully discarding the insights of our medieval predecessors. There is no question that I shall need to add Andrew Willard Jones’ Before Church and State: A Study of Social Order in the Sacramental Kingdom of St. Louis IX to my reading list!

Here are a few more excepts from this excellent review by :

“In the vision of peace that Jones describes, the clergy, who wielded the spiritual sword, and the lay authorities, who wielded the secular, had distinct roles, but they were cooperating toward a single end. They were not engaged in a struggle for “sovereignty,” a concept that had yet to be invented; instead, they actively promoted each other’s power as a means toward their common end…

“Even a short time ago—with the ascendancy of the “religious right” in the Reagan and Bush years—it was plausible to argue that the separation of church and state was good for religion. The accelerating pace of secularization manifested, for instance, in the legalization of homosexual marriage [and, I would add, an increasingly militant atheism making an ever-larger noise in the public square] makes that position much less plausible today. Before Church and State offers an alternative vision, a vision that could be realized only by a profound and fundamental transformation of the whole of our society. I am convinced that in working toward such a transformation, we have nothing to lose.”

Commemoration of William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Martyr, 1645 | For All the Saints

 

Source: William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1645 | For All the Saints

Today marks the martyrdom – and thus, by ancient Christian tradition, the “heavenly birthday” – of William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury (1633 – 1645). While frequently criticized, and not without justification, for his willingness to aggressively pursue and harshly punish “Dissenters,” it is worth noting that his motive was to protect the Anglican expression of Christianity from a school of thought – Puritanism – that was both militantly opposed to that Anglican expression, and furthermore rapidly gaining the ascendancy.

That they would be just as willing to use vicious means against their own opponents (including not only the Laudian party, but Anglicans in general) when they attained power was demonstrated all too clearly during the Interregnum (Long Parliament and Protectorate) following the execution of King Charles I, called by some King Charles the Martyr. Does that justify the Courts of High Commission and Star Chamber? I leave that to my readers to decide. I will only quote from the above-linked essay:

“Honored as a martyr and condemned as an intolerant bigot, he was compassionate in his defense of the rights of the common people against the landowners. He was honest, devout, loyal to the king and to the rights and privileges of the Church of England. He tried to reform and protect the Church in accordance with his convictions – though these attempts at reform were marred by his treatment of those who strenuously disagreed with him theologically and liturgically.”

The essay goes on to quote A.W. Ballard (1945):

“As far as doctrine was concerned Laud carried on the teaching of Cranmer and Hooker. He held that the basis of belief was the Bible, but that the Bible was to be interpreted by the tradition of the early Church, and that all doubtful points were to be subjected, not to heated arguments in the pulpits, but to sober discussion by learned men. His mind, in short, like those of the earlier English reformers, combined the Protestant reliance on the Scriptures with reverence for ancient tradition and with the critical spirit of the Ranascence [Renaissance].”

I shall close with a prayer written by Laud, and found in every Book of Common Prayer published since his time. It is my prayer, as well, and should be that of us all: I invite you – especially you who are of the Anglican observance, but it is equally open to all Christians, for obvious reasons – to use it, regularly!

For the Church.

O GRACIOUS Father, we humbly beseech thee for thy holy Catholic Church; that thou wouldst be pleased to fill it with all truth, in all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in anything it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, establish it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of him who died and rose again, and ever liveth to make intercession for us, Jesus Christ, thy Son, our Lord. Amen.


(“Catholic,” in this sense, does not mean Roman Catholic, but in the words of another great Anglican luminary, Lancelot Andewes, “the whole Catholic Church: Eastern, Western, and our own.”)

Prince: Germany should reinstate monarchy | The Local

Prince: Germany should reinstate monarchy

Germany should reinstate its monarchy to speak to people’s emotions, make them proud of their country and even encourage them to have babies, according to Prince Philip Kiril of Prussia, great-great grandson of the last Kaiser.

Source: Prince: Germany should reinstate monarchy | The Local

Nice to see that there is at least some support in the German Royal Family for a Restoration! But unfortunately, “even if the German royal family were to be reinstated, Prince Philip would not sit on the throne – that honour would go to Prince Georg Friedrich von Preußen, who is the direct heir and has said he would not want to see a royal restoration.” I am sorry he feels that way; that is, to my mind, an abrogation of his responsibility as the direct heir, which is to serve his people – including assuming the throne, if called upon to do so. A shame he is unwilling!

What was the Oxford Movement? – Pusey House

Picture

“Catholicism is not confined to the Roman communion, nor Orthodoxy to the eastern churches.”

Source: What was the Oxford Movement? – Pusey House

“The term ‘Oxford Movement’ is often used to describe the whole of what might be called the Catholic revival in the Church of England. More properly it refers to the activities and ideas of an initially small group of people in the University of Oxford who argued against the increasing secularisation of the Church of England, and sought to recall it to its heritage of apostolic order, and to the catholic doctrines of the early church fathers… The rediscovered emphases on apostolic succession and the Catholicity of the church, on priesthood, on sacrament and sacrifice, on prayer, holiness and the beauty of worship, are the Tractarians’ gifts to their successors.”

Though some of them (and definitely some of their successors) became what I would consider excessively ultramontane (Romanist) toward the end of the era, I am largely in agreement with the major foci and accomplishments of the Oxford Movement – particularly the “rediscovered emphases on apostolic succession and the Catholicity of the church, on priesthood, on sacrament and sacrifice, on prayer, holiness and the beauty of worship” mentioned in this post.

And conversely, much though I love the simplicity and clarity of classical Prayer Book worship – and I do – it can sometimes be a bit too excessively austere, for my tastes, with too few seasonal variations: a few more antiphons and Office hymns would do it no harm, in my opinion! Nor would a few more words and actions that underscore the holiness of what we are doing, particularly in the Eucharist (Holy Communion). But, nothing is perfect! 🙂

In any case, the pastoral imperative underlying the Oxford reformers’ efforts cannot be underestimated. They were doing what they were doing, not for the sake of “playing church,” but to strengthen themselves and their parishioners in times of great need. That in the process, they managed to restore some of the “baby” which had been thrown out with some admittedly dirty “bathwater” during the Reformation was, in my opinion, an added bonus.

But perhaps their most lasting and significant legacy is that assertion which I posted as the opening caption above: that “Catholicism is not confined to the Roman communion, nor Orthodoxy to the eastern churches.” Indeed not!