Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 7     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   7   Next
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,815
Reply with quote  #61 
Napoleon was, of course, defeated mainly thanks to Protestant Britain...
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,030
Reply with quote  #62 

Credit where it's due. Orthodox Russia and Protestant Prussia played their parts.

ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #63 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
Napoleon was, of course, defeated mainly thanks to Protestant Britain...


That's because the Church was being punished by Revolution and tyranny.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #64 
Quote:
Originally Posted by clark
Quote:
So the real picture of this historical event of 1804 is found in the Church Fathers and their interpretation of St Paul and his second letter to the Thessalonians in which the Church Fathers claim that once the Office of the Roman Emperor (then pagan, now Roman Catholic) is removed from the world scene, then will the antichrist make his appearance:
Is there a citation for this?? Personally (and I am going to be criticized for this I am sure) I think that the Russian Emperor has just as much a claim to being on equal level with the Holy Roman Emperor being that neither are of the original Empire (which the only remnant of that is the throne of the Patriarch of Constantinople). Personally I find these prophecies to be worthless as they attempt to place the end of the world on some predictable time table when Christ says that we will neither know the day or hour and that it wil come like a thief in the night. Anyways, other then that I am  fully agree. Napoleon's crimes against the Empire surely were one of his many crimes against God. To give him a little credit though, thanks to Napoleon, the Papacy was able to break out of a weak period and regain a fair amount of power and respect that had been lost previously during the enlightenment. Just showing that God can take a bad thing and bring some good out of it.


The Pope elected and crowned the Western Emperor, who was awarded imperial soveriegnty by Divine Providence and the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, and His Imperial Majesty replaced the Eastern Emperor who lost his claim to universal imperium when he apostasised from the Faith. Sure, there is Constantine XI Paleologus and everything, but come on. The whole Eastern thing is being taken a bit far, Clark; no offence. The Russian Empire is an Empire, sure, but it is not the Empire and it never will be. It does not even have for its primate one of the original five patriarchs, much less the one supreme and immediate in jurisdiction over the others, as well as every other human creature who deigns to call himself a Christian.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #65 
The HRE wasn't ever the Empire either.

And news flash, the Bishop of Rome doesn't have supreme jurisdiction.  Period.


Even in St. Peter's appeal is made to the One over him.

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
clark

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,066
Reply with quote  #66 
The fact that the Roman Empire was pagan originally must be irrelevant then, since they couldn't have been legitimately the Empire since they weren't Catholic. The Eastern Empire was the legitimate Empire because it has direct succession from Augustus to Blessed Constantine XI. The Russian Empire is a legitimate successor of the original Empire because of dynastic relationship and I do think the HRE is a legitimate successor of the original Empire in the west. That doesn't over rule the rights of the original Empire while it still existed. Its irrelevant if it doesn't have one of the original Patriarchs. The Holy Roman Empire barely ever held Rome so they never had one of the Five Patriarchs either.

I have been a strong supporter of the original Empire well before I became Eastern Catholic. You can probably (if you search the forum) find posts where I have discussed this before on this very board.

warning

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 72
Reply with quote  #67 
Quote:
Originally Posted by clark
The fact that the Roman Empire was pagan originally must be irrelevant then, since they couldn't have been legitimately the Empire since they weren't Catholic.

The Authority of the Holy Roman Emperor is the continuation of the Authority of the pagan Roman Emperor. The Authority is of the same Divine Origin-The Blessed Trinity. The pagan Roman Emperors who ignored the True Faith and those Roman Catholic Emperors who were immoral are both considered as iniquitous. It is the seat of Authority of the Roman Emperor which one should give due obedience. Not to the iniquitous man, but the Divine Office. Render to Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's.  Not render to Ceasar Tiberius the things that are Ceasar Tiberius. Render to the Office and not the iniquitous man.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,030
Reply with quote  #68 

Warning, we all know you're a complete nutter. Would it be too much to ask you to spell Caesar correctly, though? Probably.

clark

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,066
Reply with quote  #69 
The Holy Roman Empire is not the Roman Empire though. It was a completely different new christian state, not a continuation of the original Empire which continued on in the East until 1453. Even if you use the argument that the Eastern emperors were schismatic, then you are still left with several Catholic Eastern Emperors overlapping with HR emperors in the west. Such as Basil II and Otto III both living at the same time, ruling at the same time, and both being in union with Rome as this was before 1054.
warning

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 72
Reply with quote  #70 
Quote:
Originally Posted by clark
The Holy Roman Empire is not the Roman Empire though. It was a completely different new christian state, not a continuation of the original Empire which continued on in the East until 1453. Even if you use the argument that the Eastern emperors were schismatic, then you are still left with several Catholic Eastern Emperors overlapping with HR emperors in the west. Such as Basil II and Otto III both living at the same time, ruling at the same time, and both being in union with Rome as this was before 1054.

The Holy Roman Emperors themselves always thought that their Office is a continuation of the Pagan Roman Empire. And the schismatic eastern emperors are subjects of the Holy Roman Emperor, whether they acknowledged it or not. Once part of the Roman Empire, always part of the Roman Empire. This includes French Kings as well, so says Cardinal Torquemada and Dante etc…

Thanks for the spelling lesson Peter. What’s your point? Name calling? You must have a better plan and a more practical way of bringing about the Restoration of All things in Christ? Yeah… lets hear it….start another thread.. Try and come up with a better plan without the use of an Imperial Election and the Holy Right Arm of the Church. Go ahead lets see if your plan if worthily of merit. Oh and please refrain yourself from using the writings of a St Paul, Dante, William of Ockham, John of Salisbury, John of Paris, Marsellius of Padua, Norman Anonymous, Giles of Rome etc…. or just about anybody prior to your birth date. Seems your contempt for my post reaches far beyond my ability to spell. Just a heads up, please refrain yourself from mocking the Catholic Tradition and Faith as well

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,030
Reply with quote  #71 

I have no wish to bring about the Restoration of All Things in Christ. Being an atheist, I wouldn't have. I do have a wish that utter nutters wouldn't populate this forum, and you are the last currently left. Whether you survive is up to royalcello, and I don't suppose, judging on the tolerance which he has shown before to me amongst others, that he will expel you. I would, without hesitation. But I'm not him.

CaesarII

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 585
Reply with quote  #72 

I find little room for disagreement with Warning. I dont really see what makes him worthy of a forum ban that could not be applied to all the Catholics here. Ban him and you might as well ban us all, which I am sure would be agreeable to some.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,030
Reply with quote  #73 

Well, I certainly wouldn't do that even if I had the power. Catholics are mostly the lifeblood of this forum. I get on with them fine, I realise you don't like me but I do like you. Warning is a nutcase, though. We regularly have people calling for the execution of sodomites, which would include me. I sigh and tolerate it. He is unique in my memory for calling for the re-institution of slavery. Beyond that, his Empire obsession is simply nuts. There is no Empire, either we are monarchists or we are crazies. Going by him, we are crazies. Which is why I wish him gone.

warning

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 72
Reply with quote  #74 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter

I have no wish to bring about the Restoration of All Things in Christ. Being an atheist, I wouldn't have. I do have a wish that utter nutters wouldn't populate this forum, and you are the last currently left. Whether you survive is up to royalcello, and I don't suppose, judging on the tolerance which he has shown before to me amongst others, that he will expel you. I would, without hesitation. But I'm not him.

No offense taken, Peter. Interested to see what some spill out onto the internet. Now I see where you are coming from. We are both working to the same end. World Monarchy. Different paths and different means, but the same end. One good, the other bad. Both opposed to each other. Interested to see how this all plays out over the next decade or so. Your side loses by the way.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,030
Reply with quote  #75 

Offence was intended. I am a monarchist, same as you. But in no other respect the same as you.

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.