Errors of Russia
#51
(02-14-2012, 02:59 PM)PeterII Wrote: Peter II was the son of Peter the Great and emperor of Russia. 

Which of his sons named Peter do you mean?

The first (1705-1707), the second (1715-1719) or the third (1723)? All died during childhood.
Reply
#52
(02-14-2012, 02:45 PM)Adam Wayne Wrote: And what is all this about Nero in the Bible? Are you referring to Caesar Augustus, when our Lord said, "render unto Caeser what belongs to Caeser.", because the Jews resented paying the tax and tried to trick our Lord? Or are you speaking of some other event?

This passage from Paul is implicitly referring to Nero:

Romans 13:1-7 Wrote:Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God.   Therefore he that resisteth the power, [that is, Nero or the government] resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation.  For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same.  For he is God's minister to thee, for good. [that is, Nero in particular, government authority in general] But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake.  For therefore also you pay tribute. For they are the ministers of God, serving unto this purpose.  Render therefore to all men their dues. Tribute, to whom tribute is due: custom, to whom custom: fear, to whom fear: honour, to whom honour.

Government authorities, including Nero or Hitler or Stalin, are ordained by God, as God's ministers.  Fun fact.
Reply
#53
(02-14-2012, 04:26 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(02-14-2012, 02:59 PM)PeterII Wrote: Peter II was the son of Peter the Great and emperor of Russia. 

Which of his sons named Peter do you mean?

The first (1705-1707), the second (1715-1719) or the third (1723)? All died during childhood.

Actually Peter II of Russia was Peter the Great's grandson.
Reply
#54
(02-14-2012, 09:58 PM)mikemac Wrote:
(02-14-2012, 04:26 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(02-14-2012, 02:59 PM)PeterII Wrote: Peter II was the son of Peter the Great and emperor of Russia. 

Which of his sons named Peter do you mean?

The first (1705-1707), the second (1715-1719) or the third (1723)? All died during childhood.

Actually Peter II of Russia was Peter the Great's grandson.

Ah, yes.

The son of Tsarevich Alexei, Peter the Great's eldest son who died in prison after intense torture.
Reply
#55
(02-14-2012, 10:02 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(02-14-2012, 09:58 PM)mikemac Wrote:
(02-14-2012, 04:26 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(02-14-2012, 02:59 PM)PeterII Wrote: Peter II was the son of Peter the Great and emperor of Russia. 

Which of his sons named Peter do you mean?

The first (1705-1707), the second (1715-1719) or the third (1723)? All died during childhood.

Actually Peter II of Russia was Peter the Great's grandson.

Ah, yes.

The son of Tsarevich Alexei, Peter the Great's eldest son who died in prison after intense torture.

I thought his handle was meaning Peter the Roman too.  There doesn't seem to be much special about Peter II of Russia.  He just reigned for three years.  "Peter tightened Serfdom by banning them from volunteering for military service and thus escaping serfdom."  Maybe he thinks serfdom was a good thing.  :LOL: 
Reply
#56
(02-14-2012, 02:58 PM)Adam Wayne Wrote: Peter II is one of the posters in this thread.

Say, how about the errors of those wacky German Theologians? Seems they started in the mid ninteenth century along with the novelities of the Americanists. I believe Pius IX had something to say about that, didn't he?

You folks might want to read the Jesuit publication Civila Cattolica which was financed by Pius IX.

But never mind, you all seem completely happy with the errors of Russia which you can twist to your own personal view. The ultimate in open-ended definitions.

Russia isn't spreading any errors.  It's all nonsense.  After the consecration of that nation to the Immaculate Heart, which heaven accepted, she is being slowly converted.  At about the same pace that the Dogma of the Faith is being preserved in Portugal, in case anyone is curious.

Yep, that's about the size of it.  We'll just put those errors and that consecration and that dogma in a nice glittering gold lock box and wrap it up all nicely with a pink bow and stick it in our Groucho Marx cigar and smoke it in a collective coffee clatch.

And that's that.
Reply
#57
(02-14-2012, 10:14 PM)mikemac Wrote:
(02-14-2012, 10:02 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(02-14-2012, 09:58 PM)mikemac Wrote:
(02-14-2012, 04:26 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(02-14-2012, 02:59 PM)PeterII Wrote: Peter II was the son of Peter the Great and emperor of Russia. 

Which of his sons named Peter do you mean?

The first (1705-1707), the second (1715-1719) or the third (1723)? All died during childhood.

Actually Peter II of Russia was Peter the Great's grandson.

Ah, yes.

The son of Tsarevich Alexei, Peter the Great's eldest son who died in prison after intense torture.

I thought his handle was meaning Peter the Roman too.  There doesn't seem to be much special about Peter II of Russia.  He just reigned for three years.  "Peter tightened Serfdom by banning them from volunteering for military service and thus escaping serfdom."  Maybe he thinks serfdom was a good thing.  :LOL: 

And you're assuming the screenname is about Peter II of Russia. It could be one of the three sons of Peter the Great that died in infancy.

In any case, it's a rather nebulous affair, I admit.
Reply
#58
Yeah I guess he didn't actually say that, did he.

Mr. Quintessential Heckler again the consecration of that nation to the Immaculate Heart still hasn't happened properly yet.
Reply
#59
Peter II was also the last King of Yugoslavia, King of Portugal, the last pope in the prophecy of St. Malachy, and P2 was the name of a prominent Masonic lodge in Italy. 
Reply
#60
Crusading Philo Wrote:Don't libertarians argue that the vast majority of people ought to be wage-slaves? On the question of duties and rights, we also have a duty to give to the poor. Does that mean that the poor have a right to my money? Someone having a duty to do something does not imply that I have some sort of "right" inhering in my nature that obligates him to fulfill that duty.

Choosing to work for a wage does not make one a slave.  In a free market society, people have the freedom to choose how to earn a living.  There is natural inequality, but equal opportunity. There is no natural law "duty" to give to the poor, which is an act of charity and mercy. 

Crusading Philologist Wrote:At any rate, I'm not sure why consent is all that important in questions of distributing goods. The state has a right and obligation to oversee this distribution, and this entails the authority to create laws directed toward the common good, which are of course not based on consent. So, as long as the state is acting in order to promote the common good, I'm not sure that consent is especially important.

The State has rights but individuals don't?  There's Hobbes Leviathan for you.  What's to stop the overlords from imprisoning or killing wealthy people and distributing their property for the "common good"?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)