Proud American vs Proud Monarchist

31 August 10

So last night I added the image I created “Proud American Monarchist” to the post I made regarding why I was a monarchist. I also added it to my Facebook as my profile image. If that does nothing else it will garner a comment or two. And it did.

The comments were rather interesting in and of themselves. It raised the question of how a person could be a “Proud American” and at the same time a “Proud American Monarchist.” I venture to say that the answer is emphatically YES! Why and how could this be? The question is found in the answer. Before this country was usurped by Insurrectionists it was a proud monarchist nation. From the very beginning this country was British, there was no hostile takeover of the American continent by the British crown, the voyagers who came to this country seeking “religious freedom” as the American stories go, were, at the very same time NOT seeking a separation from the Crown. Very much the opposite!

The pilgrims, the volunteers who made the trek across the ocean, the settlers that came to start a new life in the New World, never once did they rebel from the Crown, instead they lived in peace knowing that the Crown was their protector and benefactor. This can be seen even as far back as the Magna Carta:

JOHN, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his officials and loyal subjects, Greeting.

The drafters of the Magna Carta still, even with their issues and grievances, saw His Majesty as a King and as their King. It was not until the documents of Insrurrection that the idea of separation is put forth to the Crown.

Even before the Insurrection there were those, the vast majority of the colonists who sought to heal the wounds between themselves and the Crown. This is seen clearly in the “Olive Branch petition.

The Olive Branch Petition was adopted by the Continental Congress in July 1775 in an attempt to avoid a full-blown war with Great Britain. The petition affirmed American loyalty to Great Britain and entreated the king to prevent further conflict.

When the Second Continental Congress convened in May 1775, most delegates followed John Dickinson in his quest to reconcile with George III of Great Britain. However, a smaller group of delegates led by John Adams believed that war was inevitable. During the course of the Second Continental Congress, Adams and his group of colleagues decided the wisest course of action was to remain quiet and wait for the opportune time to rally the people.

This decision allowed John Dickinson and his followers to pursue whatever means of reconciliation they wanted. It was during this time that the idea of the Olive Branch Petition was approved. The Olive Branch Petition was first drafted by Thomas Jefferson, but John Dickinson found Jefferson’s language too offensive. Dickinson rewrote most of the document, although some of the conclusion remained Jefferson’s. Dickinson claimed that the colonies did not want independence but that they merely wanted to negotiate trade and tax regulations with Great Britain. Dickinson suggested the King draw up a final plan or agreement to settle trade disputes. To help the King with his plan, Dickinson suggested that either the colonists be given free trade and taxes equal to those levied on the people in Great Britain, or no taxes and strict trade regulations.

The letter was approved on July 5, but signed and sent to London on July 8, 1775. Dickinson had hoped that word of the bloodshed at Lexington and Concord combined with the “Humble Petition” would inspire the King to at least negotiate with the colonists.

However, his petition was undermined due to a confiscated letter of John Adams. John Adams wrote a letter to a friend expressing his discontent with the Olive Branch Petition. He wrote war was inevitable and he thought the Colonies should have already raised a navy and captured British officials. This confiscated letter arrived in Great Britain at about the same time as the Olive Branch petition. The British used Adams’ letter to claim that the Olive Branch Petition was insincere. (Commentary on the text of the Olive Branch Petition)

Seeing this fact alone it goes to show that, if one is proud his English heritage and the monarchy that ensued from it, than one is more proud of America then those that rebelled against her sovereign. America as it was. Am I un-American for supporting the government that existed in this country before the lawful monarch was wrongfully deposed? That depends on which side you agree with. The bottom line is that the true American is one who does not rebel against the lawful government. Those people are called traitors. Pure and simple. Traitors to themselves and traitors to the Crown.

God bless America, and God bless the Monarchy whose subjects and children we rightfully are.

Advertisements

I Am A Monarchist

30 August 10

Proud American Monarchist

Why Am I A Monarchist

This is an easy question to answer, but at the same time I am very careful how I word my position on monarchy because the ignorant would fight my points and the intelligent could state my case so much better than I could.

History is colored by the author telling the story. As an American child we are taught one side of a conflict that became an Insurrection. Monarchies and kings are painted as tyrants regardless of the situation. This is especially true of His Majesty King George III. The events of the “war for Independence” are very hastily described from a total Insurrectionist standpoint.

King George taxed the colonists without cause. They did not have a voice in Parliament. They were infringed upon with troops in their cities… the list goes on.. all of this leads to war. However, when one takes even a cursory look at the situation from a British standpoint a completely different picture seems to emerge.

I will go into a post specifically on the Insurrectionists, their motives, their goals etc., but for now the topic at hand it monarchy in general. I bring up the British to point out that in America anyone who would look at monarchy with even the slightest positive affirmation is seen as a traitor. If this is the case with me, then so be it. I accept it.

Monarchy is older than any Republic. It has a structure and a history richer than the small and fractured histories of all of the republics of the world. Monarchy is a religious institution based in the Old and New Testaments. Began, blessed, and perpetuated by God Himself. One might say to accept Republicanism is an implicit denial of the sovereignty of God.

The anointing of a monarch, be it king or queen is a Sacramental Mystery of the Church. Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have rites of anointing of monarchs as part of their Liturgikon. To say that Christianity is against monarchy in the very least seems blatantly contradictory considering this fact.

Why am I a monarchist? Because the Republican form of government is, at its core antiChristian. The basis of the Republican form of government is not God, but rather explicitly it is man who is the focus of all things.

This in and of itself is the stemming point for my despising Republicanism. It is all about ego. When we look at the documents of the founding of this country it is more than blatant in and of itself.

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union…”

We the people? Can we in all honesty form a “more perfect union”? And what is this more perfect union that the founders speak of? What were the framers referring to? All they knew was the government of the British Empire. Did these men, these Insurrectionists truly believe that they could create a form of government better than a God-ordained, God blessed and God protected monarchy? This is the utter and complete egocentrism of the founders of this country.

The other issue I take is with the idea that “America was founded on Christian principles.” I take issue with the idea that non-Christians can claim to hold to Christian principles when the actively and adamantly deny Christianity. The truth of the matter is that most were deist or Unitarians (which doesn’t preclude also being christian) including Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Monro and of course Thomas Paine (remember him? The Father of the American Revolution?)…

You can easily find the info on Jefferson’s lack of Christian beliefs..he was very vocal about this and wrote many letters…but here is one bit for you: A footnote where the asterisk appears cited Meade as proof that avowed unbelievers sometimes served as vestrymen “As Bishop William Meade put it, somewhat nastily, in 1857, `Even Mr. Jefferson and [George] Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence'” (William Meade, Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, 2 vols., Philadelphia, 1857, I, p. 191).

Monroe: In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill “establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” Madison wrote his famous “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” in which he presented fifteen reasons why government should not be come involved in the support of any religion.

Washington: In his Annals of the American Pulpit, The Reverend William B. Sprague, D.D., wrote a biographical sketch of the Reverend James Abercrombie, the other pastor of the congregation Washington attended. In this work, Sprague quoted Abercrombie in confirmation of what White had written to Mercer

One incident in Dr. Abercrombie’s experience as a clergyman, in connection with the Father of this Country, is especially worthy of record; and the following account of it was given by the Doctor himself, in a letter to a friend, in 1831 shortly after there had been some public allusion to it “With respect to the inquiry you make I can only state the following facts; that, as pastor of the Episcopal church, observing that, on sacramental Sundays, Gen. Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation–always leaving Mrs. Washington with the other communicants–she invariably being one–I considered it my duty in a sermon on Public Worship, to state the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations who uniformly turned their backs upon the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President; and as such he received it” (From Annals of the American Pulpit, Vol. 5, p. 394, quoted by Remsberg, pp. 104-105).

Abercrombie went on to explain that he had heard through a senator that Washington had discussed the reprimand with others and had told them that “as he had never been a communicant, were he to become one then it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal, arising altogether from his elevated station” (Ibid.). Abercrombie then said that Washington “never afterwards came on the morning of sacramental Sunday” (Ibid.).

also

John Adams: Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.”

Benjamin Franklin, said:
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion…has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble.”

and of course

The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” The treaty was written during the Washington administration, and sent to the Senate during the Adams administration. It was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers – two in Philadelphia, one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.

Those that tore us from the paternal care of His Majesty King George and the British Crown tore us from the very heart of our existence. For these reasons,as well as others, I will get into in other posts are the crux of the reasons why I consider myself to be a monarchist. I support all monarchies, regardless of religious affiliation. In all things, God save the Queen and all monarchies of the world!


Orthodox Christian Monarchist Loyalist

29 August 10

When I am asked at times where I stand on the religio-socio-political spectrum this is my response. It is funny the looks I get when I tell this to people.

I have wanted to post on this topic for a while but refrained due to the responses I might get. Then I realised something. Considering the number of visits this blog gets and the people that comment on my posts it is a pretty good chance that there will be more agreement on my position than the opposite.

I am going to start a series of posts on monarchy, and the idea of being a Loyalist and the “whats” and “whys” of my position. I shall begin this series tomorrow when I have a bit more time.

God save the Queen!


Easier than Expected

28 August 10

It’s funny when you wonder something for a long time and you fear asking the questions because of the answers your will receive.  If one chooses to live in fear when all that is required is faith and obedience.

When one realizes that these to gifts are at their disposal, it truly makes the more difficult decisions in life so much easier.

I realise that some things in life are given to us for our benefit.  The same can be said of the things in life that God chooses to not grace us with. I received one of these today.  It was not really a shock,  but at the same time it was a harsh reality of who I am and what I am called to.

I must continue to persevere in my salvation without worrying about this unattainable aspect of my life.  It does not defined me.  I am more than this and in a sense i have been called to greater things.

When I started this journey it was because I was seeking something greater than myself.  I was granted that grace and that must be sufficient for me.  I am happy with this decision.  It was feeding to know that I was not shackled with not knowing and now that I know I can focus on living with the grace I have been granted and not worry about anything else.

Glory to God for all things!


The Martyr of Christ Evgeney

20 August 10

Evgeny Rodionov,19 years old, did not lose his faith despite horrible tortures

“The Chechen captivity is the most horrid, the most inhuman and barbaric thing that can ever happen,” says Evgeny’s mother. She had to survive hell to find her son, the body of her son, to be more precise. Evgeny’s death coincided with his 19th birthday. Evgeny’s mother, Lubov, was a little late: she was just seven kilometers far from the place of her son’s execution.

Evgeny was born 30 minutes after midnight on May 23, 1977. His delivery was not hard. He was a good and healthy child, his weight was 3900 grams. I was so relieved, when I heard his first cry. As if he was trying to say: “I came into this world, love me!” I incidentally looked at the window. It was dark outside, and I suddenly saw a falling star. I went pale, my heart turned to a cold small piece. Doctors tried to convince me that it was a good sign. They told me that a falling star was a sign of good life for my baby. However, I had to live with a sense of something dangerous coming over us. Time made me forget about it, but I had to remember the sign in 19 years.”

The Russian patriotic press has already reported about the deed of a 19-year-old Russian soldier, Evgeny Rodionov. This young man found himself in the Chechen captivity in 1996. He did not betray either his fatherland or his faith. He did not take off his cross even at the hardest moment of beastly tortures. The state decorated Evgeny with the Order of Courage. People’s donations made it possible to put a two-meter high Orthodox cross on his grave. People come to visit his grave from most distant parts of Russia. His mother, Lubov Rodionova, says that people’s attitude changed her entire awareness of life. A WWII veteran once came to visit Evgeny’s grave. He took off his military decoration – the Bravery Medal – and put in on the tombstone.

Evgeny Rodionov’s biography was published in a book that came out in 2002. The book was called “The New Martyr of Christ, Warrior Evgeny.” This is not really a book, but a booklet, which was written by priest Alexander Shargunov. However, we know little about Evgeny’s inmost thoughts, feelings, emotions, or what he had to go through during three months of the Chechen hell. A lot of things remain a mystery. Lubov Rodionova shared her thoughts with the priest about her son’s childhood, his interests at school, his attitude to the military service. She also shared her most horrible thoughts – about the news of his alleged desertion from the army, and what followed that news afterwards.

Eighteen-year-old Evgeny Rodionov was taken captive with three other soldiers at night of February 14th, not far from the Chechen settlement of Galashki. The guys arrived from the Kaliningrad region. They patrolled the border between the republics of Chechnya and Ingushetia. Their control and registration post was located some 200 meters far from the security detachment. The post was just a small cabin, without any light or wire communication. The cabin did not even have a military support, in spite of the fact that it was a single cabin on the mountainous road, which was used for carrying weapons, ammunition, captives, drugs and so on. The border guards stopped an ambulance vehicle to check it. More than ten armed Chechens got out of the vehicle. Needless to mention that it was very easy for them to cope with young inexperienced soldiers. The guys showed as much resistance as they could, but the outcome of the fight was evident before it even started. Lubov Rodionova believes that this incident happened over officers’ negligence, basically. “The captivity has always been considered to be the most horrible thing that can ever happen to a person. It implies no freedom, but only tortures and humiliation. Experience showed that the Chechen captivity is the most horrid, the most inhuman and barbaric thing that can ever happen,” Lubov Rodionova believes.

As soon as she learned that her son was a captive of Chechen guerrillas, she started looking for him all over Chechnya for nine months. She had to go through every horror imaginable. “I think that God was watching over me. I was walking along mined roads, but I did not step on a bomb. He protected me from bombings, he did not let me die, because my duty was to find my son, to bury him on his native land, according to Christian traditions. I have realized that recently. When I was walking along those military roads, I just kept silence, praying to God in my heart.”

Chechen bandits murdered Evgeny Rodionov on May 23, 1996 in the Chechen settlement of Bamut. Russian troops occupied the village the next day. Lubov Rodionova learned about her son’s death only in September. She had to put a mortgage on her own apartment in order to find Evgeny’s body and to take it away along with the bodies of his murdered friends. A Chechen man agreed to show her the place, where Evgeny was buried. She had to pay him a lot of money for that. “When I came to Chechnya in the middle of February, a living private cost ten million rubles. This price was 50 million in August. A friend of mine was told to pay 250 million rubles for her son, since he was an officer. It was nighttime, when I and some sappers were digging the pit, in which the bodies of four Russian soldiers were thrown. I was praying all the time, hoping that my Evgeny was not going to be there. I could not and did not want to believe that he was murdered. When we were taking out the remnants, I recognized his boots. However, I still refused to accept the fact of his death, until someone found his cross. Then I fainted.”

Evgeny Rodionov was murdered by Ruslan Khaikhoroyev. This bandit confessed that himself. “Your son had a choice to stay alive. He could convert to Islam, but he did not agree to take his cross off. He also tried to escape once,” said Khaikhoroyev. The guerrilla was killed together with his bodyguards on August 23, 1999 in a fight between armed Chechen groups. When Lubov Rodionova came back home, Evgeny’s father died five days after the funeral. He could not stand the loss of his son.

Archpriest Dmitry Smirnov, acting chairman of the Moscow Patriarchy department for cooperation with the Armed Forces, says that Evgeny Rodionov will definitely be canonized. The adequate inquiry has already been made, although more information about Evgeny’s fate is needed. Father Dmitry said that Evgeny would be canonized as soon as the information was collected.

A sign in memory of the brave Russian border guard was put at the entrance to the school, where he studied. There was also a documentary released about him. The writings on Evgeny’s grave cross run: “Russian soldier Evgeny Rodionov is buried here. He defended his Fatherland and did not disavow Christ. He was executed on May 23, 1996, on the outskirts of Bamut.”

“We know that he had to go through horrible, long-lasting sufferings that could be compared to the ones of great martyrs in ancient times. They were beheaded, dismembered, but they remained devoted to Jesus Christ anyway,” priest Alexander Shargunov said during the requiem in Evgeny Rodionov’s memory.


On the Dormition of the Theotokos

15 August 10

“Concerning the Dormition of the Theotokos, this is what the Church has received from ancient times from the tradition of the Fathers. When the time drew nigh that our Savior was well-pleased to take His Mother to Himself, He declared unto her through an Angel that three days hence He would translate her from this temporal life to eternity and bliss. On hearing this, she went up with haste to the Mount of Olives, where she prayed continuously. Giving thanks to God, she returned to her house and prepared whatever was necessary for her burial. While these things were taking place, clouds caught up the Apostles from the ends of the earth, where each one happened to be preaching, and brought them at once to the house of the Mother of God, who informed them of the cause of their sudden gathering. As a mother, she consoled them in their affliction as was meet, and then raised her hands to Heaven and prayed for the peace of the world. She blessed the Apostles, and reclining upon her bed with seemliness, gave up her all-holy spirit into the hands of her Son and God.

With reverence and many lights, and chanting burial hymns, the Apostles took up that God-receiving body and brought it to the sepulchre, while the Angels from Heaven chanted with them, and sent forth her who is higher than the Cherubim. But one Jew, moved by malice, audaciously stretched forth his hand upon the bed and immediately received from divine judgment the wages of his audacity Those daring hands were severed by an invisible blow. But when he repented and asked forgiveness, his hands were restored. When they had reached the place called Gethsemane, they buried there with honor the all-immaculate body of the Theotokos, which was the source of Life But on the third day after the burial, when they were eating together and raised up the artos (bread) in Jesus’ Name, as was their custom, the Theotokos appeared in the air, saying “Rejoice” to them. From this they earned concerning the bodily translation of the Theotokos into the Heavens.

These things has the Church received from the traditions of the Fathers who have composed many hymns out of reverence, to the glory of the Mother of our God.


The Faith of the Last Martyrs

1 August 10

THE SEVEN MACCABEES, THEIR MOTHER SOLOMONIA AND ELEAZAR THE PRIEST

They all suffered for the purity of the faith of Israel under King Antiochus, called by some “Epiphanos,” the “enlightened one” and by others “Epimanis” the “insane one.” Because of the great sins in Jerusalem and especially the vying over priestly authority and crimes committed during the occasion of this struggle, God permitted a great calamity on the Holy City.

After that, Antiochus wanted by any means to impose upon the Jews the idolatry of the Hellenes in place of their faith in the one living God and he did everything toward this goal. Assisting Antiochus in his intention were some treacherous high priests and other elders of Jerusalem.

On one occasion, King Antiochus himself came to Jerusalem and ordered that all Jews eat the meat of swine, contrary to the Law of Moses, for eating pork was an apparent sign that one has disowned the faith of Israel. The elder Eleazar, a priest and one of the seventy translators of the Old Testament into the Greek language [the Septuagint] would not partake of pork. Because of that, Eleazar was tortured and burned.

Returning to Antioch, the king took with him the seven sons called the Maccabees and their mother Solomonia. The seven Maccabean brothers were called: Avim, Antonius, Eleazar, Gurius, Eusebon, Achim and Marcellus.

Before the eyes of their mother, the wicked king tortured the sons, one by one, ripping the skin from their faces and, afterward, casting them into the fire. They all bravely endured torture and death but they did not disown their faith.

Finally, when the mother saw her last son, the three-year old in the fire, she leaped into the flames and was consumed in the fire rendering her soul to God.

They all suffered honorably for the faith in the one living God about one hundred eighty years before Christ.

+ + +

Some might wonder at the title of this post. Why are these considered the “Last Martyrs”? the answer can be found in the hymnody of the Orthodox Church:

Tone 2 Kontakion (Seven Holy Martyrs)

Seven pillars of the Wisdom of God

and seven lampstands of the divine Light,

all-wise Maccabees, greatest of the martyrs before the time of the martyrs,//

with them ask the God of all to save those who honor you!

For those that say that the Christian Church, Orthodox or otherwise has abandoned their roots, I wonder when the last time was that the congregation of the Jews honored these great martyrs?