Difficult for me to comment having not seen either the newspaper or a forum write-up, but if it helps ...
Mike wrote:If Genoa brings in Neopolitan troops does that draw in the Papal States since he is their viceroy?
As head of State, only the Pope could declare war on behalf of the Papal States. However, if Naples was attacked (the Doge of Genoa being the Papal Viceroy), then it would certainly be a good excuse for the Papal States to declare war. It does not necessarily work the other way - there may well be forces under the control of the Doge in Naples (whether Neapolitan or Genoese or whatever), so if these forces are deployed to resist an invasion of Genoa that is the Doge's business and not necessarily that of the Papacy.
It is, of course, further complicated because some countries have refused to acknowledge the status of the Papal Fiefs, so they may choose to take an alternative view. Should they invade Naples and seek to annex it, such an annexation would be deemed illegal by the Pope in the same way that the invasions of Sardinia and Sicily are illegal.
Stuart Bailey wrote:Basically the sons of Apollo back a political doctrine which was popular in the early part of the C13 which holds that all authority comes from God and since the Pope is Gods deputy on earth it follows that:
- All secular rulers and bishops should be appointed by the Pope.
- All rulers and bishops must follow any order given to them my the Pope.
- Rulers and bishops who do not follow Papal Orders are to be deposed.
- The HRE is the Pope's deputy in secular matters so unless the Pope gives a superior order all the above powers are also vested in him.
That was never the Catholic position! The historical position simply recognised that the sacred is always superior to the secular since the soul is eternal. Secular rulers are under an obligation to use their power in ways consistent with church teachings. No bishops may exercise their office until they receive the pallium from the Pope. The Holy Roman Emperor does have additional responsibilities, but he is not the Pope's 'deputy'!
Stuart Bailey wrote:Currently the Sons of Apollo believe that the following Rulers are not fully obeying the Pope and need to be deposed & replaced:
King Louis XIV of France (by his pro Papal twin - in an Iron Mask)
King Louis has failed to respect the Papal Judgement he asked for, failed to respect the Papal Fiefs and made (though not necessarily declared) war on Catholic rulers.
Stuart Bailey wrote:King William of England, Scotland & Ireland - by James Stuart
The Pope still views King James as the legitimate King of England, Ireland and Scotland. This does not mean he had anything personal against Stadtholder William (other than him being a Calvinist heretic).
Stuart Bailey wrote:Both Kings of Poland - By ?
The Pope never made a decision about Poland or the legitimacy of any ruler of those lands, probably because he was as confused as anyone else about what was going on there.
Stuart Bailey wrote:The Duc of Savoy - by the HRE
The ex-duke of Savoy, being an excommunicant, is deemed to have removed himself. The Pope did not determine who his replacement should be, nor could he whilst there was still a chance the former duke would repent and be readmitted to the Church.
Stuart Bailey wrote:King Philip of Spain etc - By mixed bag of "Sons" like the HRE, HRE 2nd son and the Doge of Genoa.
Since there is no King Philip of Spain, only King Carl, the Brotherhood of Apollo have probably made their own opinion up about that.
Stuart Bailey wrote:Only two things do baffle me about the Sons of Apollo:
1) How did they get Protestants like the Jean Cavalier and the King of Sweden to join them?
2) Can they Swim?
In comparison to the position adopted by 'team France', the "Sons of Apollo" may well have a coherent program, but one thing I do agree with Stuart about is that it seems strange that they are able to appeal to both Catholics and Protestants. Whoever is playing them seems to be doing very well at causing trouble.