Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


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

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #76 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaesarII

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.


Those in communion with Rome don't all imagine that the Empire didn't continue.  They don't all forget the 200 years of Emperor in Communion with the Bishop of Rome while the Western Pretender held office.

Some of them know that the title given by the Bishop of Rome wasn't "Roman Emperor' but 'Emperor of the Romans'  (I've given the Latin here before, do I need do so again?).

I'm not in favour of the ban.  Being a resident nutter myself....

__________________
"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
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #77 
Quote:
Originally Posted by warning
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.



I'm no advocate of World Monarchy before the Return.  Any attempt to reestablish World Monarchy before then plays into the hand of the Father of Lies.

Christ will establish the throne of His father David at the end, and He never took communion from the Bishop of Rome. 

I rather suspect that the Jerusalem described in the Prophets will be where they describe it.  I suspect that He will reign as King of Kings, with a subsidiarity model where other kings reign as well.

__________________
"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  #78 
Quote:
Originally Posted by warning
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…




So who would you include as the first Holy Roman Emperor then? Charlemange, despite that his title was not Emperor of the Romans? Aside from this, you ignored my statement that the Imperial office already was held by a Catholic christian when the Holy Roman Empire was instituted in the west. If the Holy Roman empire in the west was truly part of the of the Roman Empire, then they should have placed themselves under the rule of New Rome when it first began. I would contend that not all western emperors viewed themselves as a direct continuation, perhaps inheirators instead. For instance, Otto II married a Roman princess and his son Otto III almost married directly into the sucession to the Imperial throne in New Rome. Had he not died in his italian campaigns, he would have been the Emperor after Basil II's death (being that Basil II left no heirs of his own). Otto III was greek educated man and held his court in the same fashion as in Constantinople. Emulation is a form of flattery in this case. Why would he emulate the Emperors if he did not see in them the truth that they were the real emperors? Take also that the governance of the Eastern Empire was a direct continuation of Roman law with the Emperor perhaps being the only monarch with real direct power in all Europe, while the western HRE was a feudal germanic system with only a minimal influence of Roman law. Your mystical ramblings have no basis in historical fact and really no basis in Church dogma or history either for that matter. This is one of the reasons why St. John of the Cross tells us to ignore apparitions or mystical private revelations and why the Church tells us that no one is obligated (or ever could be obligated) to beleive in such private revelations.
warning

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 72
Reply with quote  #79 

Quote:
Originally Posted by clark
So who would you include as the first Holy Roman Emperor then?

Julius Caesar. Again, it is the Authority of the Office and not the iniquitous man that matters. Does not matter if it was pagan. The Authority of this Office is of Divine origin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by clark
Your mystical ramblings have no basis in historical fact and really no basis in Church dogma or history either for that matter. This is one of the reasons why St. John of the Cross tells us to ignore apparitions or mystical private revelations and why the Church tells us that no one is obligated (or ever could be obligated) to beleive in such private revelations.

Never quoted any mystical private revelations to defend the cause of the office of the Holy Roman Emperor. Do not need to. Just to name a few works that are useful in defending the Office of the Emperor : Dante de Monarchia, and William of Ockham and his short discourse on Tyrannical Government, these and other works will do just fine. Actually, I very much enjoy the controversy between the Emperor and the Pope and the arguments put forth on both sides. That is my primary source. And Clark it is always best to actually quote someone, before you accuse. So please quote the "private revelations" that I used.

The rules of this forum prohibit using Scripture to defend ones position. Most of the arguments defending the Office of the Holy Roman Emperor are based on Scripture. So I do my best to defend without that necessary tool.

Again in the post above I gave a list of men who defended the Authority of the Office of The Roman Emperor (or Monarchy in general):


St Paul, Dante,

William of Ockham,

John of Salisbury,

John of Paris,

Marsellius of Padua,

Norman Anonymous,

Giles of Rome etc….

Read these & get back to me with any critique. Anything that I have written is taken from these men and more

clark

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,066
Reply with quote  #80 
Quote:
Originally Posted by warning

Quote:
Originally Posted by clark
So who would you include as the first Holy Roman Emperor then?

Julius Caesar. Again, it is the Authority of the Office and not the iniquitous man that matters. Does not matter if it was pagan. The Authority of this Office is of Divine origin.



Then explain how/why the Imperial seat was moved from its position in Constantinople among the Romans, and brought to Germany to rule over Frankish kingdoms that were never part of the original empire to begin with? If its the office and not the man, then any argument of "schism" on the eastern side is completely thrown out.

As for your other list, St. Paul doesn't defend the position of the Roman Emperor any more then he does any/every civil leader. The other men on your list are just expressing their personal (and heavily biased) views without looking at the real history and the succession from Augustus (whom was the first Emperor, not Julius) to Bl. Constantine XI.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #81 
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Clark"

....Had he not died in his italian campaigns, he would have been the Emperor after Basil II's death (being that Basil II left no heirs of his own).....

Now wouldn't than be a great counter factual history!!!!

Basil II the Bulgar slayer is one of my historical heroes!.



__________________
"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
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,815
Reply with quote  #82 
Quote:
Originally Posted by warning

The rules of this forum prohibit using Scripture to defend ones position.



They do?  I wrote the rules, and don't recall making any such rule.  I have no idea what you are talking about.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #83 
I've made use of Scripture, and even the writings of the Church Fathers. 

I'd not even be a Monarchist were it not for the Word of God Written.


__________________
"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
warning

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 72
Reply with quote  #84 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
Quote:
Originally Posted by warning

The rules of this forum prohibit using Scripture to defend ones position.



They do?  I wrote the rules, and don't recall making any such rule.  I have no idea what you are talking about.


My mistake! I always thought it was not allowed. Thanks
warning

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 72
Reply with quote  #85 

Quote:
Originally Posted by clark
Then explain how/why the Imperial seat was moved from its position in Constantinople among the Romans, and brought to Germany to rule over Frankish kingdoms that were never part of the original empire to begin with? If its the office and not the man, then any argument of "schism" on the eastern side is completely thrown out.

The doctrine of Translatio Imperi. Quoting from William of Ockham:


Chapter 29

Student There are still more things that remain to be dealt with concerning the origin of the Roman empire and perhaps an opportunity will arise later to talk about these. So putting them aside for the moment let us investigate whether the Roman empire can licitly be ruined, destroyed, made smaller, divided or transferred. And so let us ask first whether the Roman empire can be transferred.

Master That the Roman empire can be transferred is proved by three examples. The first is that it was transferred from the Romans to the Greeks (dist. 96, c. Constantinus [c.14, col.342]). The second is that it was transferred from the Greeks to the Germans, in the person of Charlemagne (Extra, De electione, c. Venerabilem [c.34, col.79]). The third is that it was transferred from the Franks to the Teutons. Whence a gloss on the word Franks in dist. 63, c. Ego Ludovicus [c.30, col.329] says, "Note that the empire of the Franks was earlier, but later the Teutons deserved the empire because of their virtues.

Student It does not appear that it should be doubted that the Roman empire can be transferred from people to people. But to many people it perhaps seems doubtful how and by whom it can be transferred. Tell me, therefore, how, according to some people's opinion, the empire can be transferred.

Master The Roman empire can be understood to be transferred in many ways: in one way the empire is so transferred from the Romans that it is no longer the Roman empire, that is that the Romans have no particular right in the empire more than other nations. The empire can be transferred from the Romans in another way, so that it remains the Roman empire and the Romans have some power or particular right in the empire more than other nations. And a translation of this kind can be further understood in many ways: in one way so that the empire is given to someone whose descendants possess the Roman empire by right of succession; in another way so that it is decreed that the emperor is elected from a certain nation or people, if it were ordained, for instance, that no one should be elected emperor unless he is a Teuton; in another way that the power and right to elect an emperor from any nation at all is given to some person or persons.

Student Who has the power to transfer the empire in one way or another?

Master The reply is that the power to transfer the empire in one way or another belongs principally to the totality of mortals, just as the power of establishing the empire belongs principally to them. If the totality of mortals wished to do so, therefore, they could transfer the Roman empire from any people at all to another.

Student Could the totality of mortals, with the exception of the Romans, transfer the Roman empire from the Romans?

Master The reply is that the whole rest of the world could not transfer the empire from the Romans despite their opposition without some fault of theirs or some clear reason, because they should not be deprived of their right without some fault or reason. Nevertheless, if there were some fault of the Romans or some reason, the rest of the world could transfer the empire from them, because, as we read in dist. 93, c. Legimus [c.24, col.327], "The world is greater than the city." This is not only true of the world as it includes the city, in that the whole is greater than a part of it, but it also represents the truth about the world as distinguished from the city. And so the power of transferring for a reason or because of a fault of the Romans is in the power of the rest of the world. However, the power of transferring the empire secondarily is, according to one opinion, in the power of the Romans. For because anyone can cede a right of his and grant it to another, the Romans can cede the right that they have over the empire and transfer that same right to another or to others, just as the Roman people transferred to an emperor the power of making laws and ruling the empire. There are nevertheless various opinions about the way of transferring the empire by the Romans. One is that the Romans were not and are not able to transfer the empire from themselves in the first way, so that, that is, they retain no particular right over the empire more than other nations. For just as an emperor can not impose a law on an emperor because he does not have the empire from an emperor and can not, therefore, deprive his successor of any right which he has, so the Roman people can not impose a law on the people to come and can not deprive them of any right which they have over the empire. And so the Roman people can not cede any right that they have over the empire. Another opinion is that the Roman people could cede every right that they have over the empire. They could also transfer every right to another or to others. For although an agreement among individuals does not modify a public right (Extra, De foro competenti, c. Si diligenti [c.12, col.251]), yet by the agreement and consent of the whole community which some public right affects, that public right is modified, as long as that public right is not a divine or natural right but is a positive and human right. For although no cleric can renounce the clerical privilege which has been granted to the whole college of clerics, yet the whole college of clerics could renounce that privilege. Since the right that the Romans have over the empire, therefore, is a human and positive right, although it is a public right granted to the community of the Romans, that right could, with the agreement of the whole community of the Romans, be modified. And so with their agreement that right can be totally transferred to another or to others.

BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #86 
The Empire didn't transfer to the Greeks.  The Empire's Center moved to what had been Greece.  That Empire still existed and was ruled by Catholic Emperors when the Pope created a NEW TITLE for a secular ruler in the West.

__________________
"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
warning

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 72
Reply with quote  #87 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
The Empire didn't transfer to the Greeks.  The Empire's Center moved to what had been Greece.  That Empire still existed and was ruled by Catholic Emperors when the Pope created a NEW TITLE for a secular ruler in the West.


Your argument is with Ockham "The first is that it was transferred from the Romans to the Greeks (dist. 96, c. Constantinus [c.14, col.342])." And the doctrine of Translation Imperi. 


clark

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,066
Reply with quote  #88 
How could it transfer to Charlemagne when his title was Emperor of the Franks and not Emperor of the Romans?
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,576
Reply with quote  #89 
Quote:
Originally Posted by clark
How could it transfer to Charlemagne when his title was Emperor of the Franks and not Emperor of the Romans?
 
He was never 'Emperor of the Franks'. He was King of the Franks and was crowned Imperator Romanorum by the Pope.

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
clark

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,066
Reply with quote  #90 
Excuse my mistake. You are correct, but he(Charlamagne) himself styled himself "  Imperator Romanum gubernans Imperium ("Emperor ruling the Roman Empire")" -at least according to Wikipedia.

Whether he titled himself Emperor of the Franks or not is irrelevant, as that is all he ruled over. All the Roman citizens were still living in the Eastern Empire or southern Italy. The germanic tribes had over run western Europe where the Franks ruled, and for it being such a title of divine importance, the last holder of the office of HR emperor surely failed miserably when he allowed it to be abolished regardless of the loss of territories.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.