www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall The Orthodox Emperor may be a reality soon!

I am astounded by the post of Alexandr. The explanation is in many ways an exigesis of various thoughts and experiences of mine that I had in 30+/- yrs of western/baptist/evangelicalism. The idea of absolute individualism is rampant in the States. It is seen as the 'right' of the people, nowadays. I do not think it was so even 2 generations ago.

I heard an evangelical speaker on the radio say that the turning point in the US was the year 1968. What with the debacle at the Democratic convention, RFK getting shot by Sirhan Sirhan, the death of ML King, the college riots, the riots in the streets, etc, etc, is a definite door thru which america passed and will not travel back thru again.

In my gathering of opinion, of those who are somewhat sensitive to the goings on in the world, it would seem that there is much evil that is transcending upon us. Even thought it is seen in every generation, notwithstanding events such as the overthrow of the Tsar, Hitler, WW I and II, Vietnam, etc, etc, it would seem there is something else. In the book, by Seraphim Rose, about the coming one world religion. He cites many things, such as Eastern religions, UFOs , and such, as a natural progression of the state of being, or rather a regression, to a masked barbaric time...even that time when evil is called good, and good ...evil..!

Either way, whatever time we are in, as in the past, we have both ...'never been here before', and what goes around ...eventually seems...to come back around. Rather than bemoan the obvious (to our eyes..), starting with myself... we should look to God, the One True GOD, for his daily provision. Of which, I am first , to not do, guilty as I am. So, Lord have mercy, mik s Bohom

Mike, moi drug! Empty your mailbox!

Alexandr

Mike,

As an amateur(ish) historian I would say that 1992 was an even greater upheaval in American history than 1968. I remember that things are drastically different now than when I was a 16 year-old now that I'm 30. (Now that I've written that, I still feel 16 and not 30 years old!)

I definitely remember the political, musical, fashion, and social changes that came in; especially after Clinton was elected.

Father,

I am afraid that referring to the Freemasonic. revolutionary usurpers of the junior branch of the House of Bourbon as "legitimate" would be highly offensive to supporters of the Legitimate King, Mons. le prince Louis, le duc d'Anjou.

In fact, it is this title that is borne by the legitimate King and the Freemasonic Orleans (the "Counts of Paris" you refer to) sued, a few years ago, to prevent Monseigneur using the title. Their case failed.

I trust you can prove that the Count of Paris and his family are Freemasons. Slander is a sin.

Fr. Serge

Father, I stand convicted of slander by the imprecise use of words. I do not know whether the current count is a Freemason. I do however know that his House was founded by an unrepentant sodomite that may have murdered his own wife. The grandson of that man was the Grand Master of French Freemasonry and after being active in fomenting the Revolution, voted for the death of the Legitimate King in hopes of replacing him. He failed, since he was guillotined a few months after the King, but in 1830 the Freemasons succeeded in overthrowing the Legitimate King of France and Navarre and placed the son of the Regicide on the "throne" as "King of the French".

Thus, whilst I cannot prove that the current count is a Freemason, there is no doubt that, historically, his House is Freemasonic and Revolutionary and that their only claim to the Throne comes through their involvement with the Lodge and the Revolution.

The idiot who voted for the execution of Louis XVI was "Philippe Egalite" who, as you correctly point out, lost his head not long afterward (he seems not to have had much of a head to lose!).

After the Restoration, Louis XVIII speedily granted a Constitution of sorts which kept things on a fairly even keel during his lifetime. Charles X (the youngest of the three brothers) tried to restore an absolute monarchy, resulting in his ouster. The Marquis de Lafayette, well known for his support of the American Revolution, decided that a King was better than a replay of the French Revolution and succeeded in getting Louis Philippe on the throne as "King of the French" (the old title was "King of France and Navarre"). For several decades, there was bitter rivalry between the resulting double line of claimants, but eventually the senior line died out, leaving the heirs of Louis-Philippe to inherit both claims. The true die-hards wouldn't have it, and somehow managed to convince themselves that yet another prince was more legitimate than the descendants of Louis-Philippe; I assume that's the line you were referring to.

In 1870 there was a serious possibility of a restoration, but the then claimant was not sufficiently astute to succeed, and thus allowed a strongly anti-Catholic Republic to come to power; the religoius orders were again expelled, etc. etc. So were the members of the Royal Family.

President de Gaulle - a practicing Catholic - was a friend of the Count of Paris and managed to negotiate an agreement allowing the members of the Royal House to return to France. De Gaulle is in fact thought to have wanted to restore the monarchy, but was not able to do it.

There the matter stands at the moment. We live in hope and prayer awaiting better days - in spe melioris aevi.

Fr. Serge

To add a bit of humor - it truly is unwise to call people Freemasons unless one is certain. But I've never recovered from a September afternoon about 20 years ago when I found myself required by the virtues of justice, truth and charity to defend Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre against the charges of - wait for it - Freemasony and Communism! It would have been ludicrous were it not that the young man who assured me that the Archbishop was both a Freemason and a Communist seriously believed this nonsense.

Fr. Serge

Yes, I've heard the same, because of the rumours about his principal Consecrator.

In the case of the crackpot I ran into, the "basis" for this amazing assertion was that Archbishop Lefebvre recognized Pope John Paul II - and after all, according to my interlocutor, everyone knew that he was a Communist and a Freemason.

Somebody who will believe that will believe anything.

Fr. Serge

Indeed, some say whatever they like and what is worse is that they believe what they have made up! :rolleyes:

Pity those poor souls...

Alice

P.S. The word 'crackpot' brought a smile to my face...the only other person I have ever heard use it is my mother!

Dear Alice,
So far as I know, I've never had the pleasure of meeting your mother, but it would appear that she is/was a lady of good vocabulary!

Speaking of crackpots (no, I don't mean your mother!), try this one (it's true - I couldn't possibly make it up). One Sunday morning in Ontario I noticed one of Those People towards the back of the Church (there's a look in the eyes that gives them away). Young man, behaving himself prayerfully. He stayed throughout the service, neither approaching for Holy Communion nor coming to kiss the Cross. However, as I was unvesting, one of my ushers came into the sacristy to tell me that a visitor wanted to see me. It was, of course, the young man I had noticed.

He introduced himself with the words "I'm a Roman Catholic", pronouncing the phrase "Roman Catholic" as though it were the name of some unheard-of sort of religion. But I understood, and did not comment. So he went on to tell me how beautiful the Mass had been and how much he had enjoyed it. Thanks. He then explained that life was difficult for him because the nearest "Roman Catholic" Mass was at least two hours away by car. Well, there were four perfectly good Roman Catholic churches in walking distance but, again, I understood what he meant. So I told him "well, you're always welcome to come here."

The young man recoiled in horror and said "O, I can't possibly come here!". Since he had just told me how nice he found us, this seemed puzzling, so I asked what the problem was. He explained that he could not possibly come to our Divine Liturgy because we pray for the Pope!

In a misguided attempt to be helpful, I pointed out that in the next town there was (and is) a Greek Orthodox church, where the priest would probably be willing for him to come. He again recoiled, in even greater horror, and said that was out of the question, he could not even set foot in such a place (or words to that effect). I again asked what the problem was and was told - I hope you're sitting down - "I can't go there! They don't pray for the Pope!".

Enough was enough. I said, mildly "Hmmm. You can't come to our Church because we pray for the Pope, and you can't go to the Greek Orthodox Church because they don't pray for the Pope. I think you have a problem." I wanted to suggest that his problem would be better submitted to a psychiatrist than to a priest, but I had sense enough not to say that, or indeed much else.

Takes all kinds, I guess.

Fr. Serge

It does certainly seem that way! :rolleyes:

Let's hope that the poor soul was finally able to make up his mind!

Respectfully,
Alice

Sorry - but there is a line of the Rurikids which is still very much alive... here in Canada - direct descendants of Anna Yaroslavna. I belong to this line. . .

Best

The way I see things happening in Russia TODAY is I feel Putin has delusions of grandeur and that he is probably thinking of reclaiming all the territory which Russia ruled over (ever usurped lands) and then possibly proclaim himself Tsar... - I wouldn't put it past this madman. . . For him to invade Ukraine with tanks in the last few days and be involved in a battle inside the borders of Ukraine is a violation of international laws and the sovereignty of Ukraine as a country. He has NO business there. What he is doing would be tantamount to the USA invading Canada for no reason... it is unconscionable to behave like this! Putin has got 'designs' on many territories and he is 'sick' he needs to be put down a few pegs because this sort of behaviour is similar to dictators like Hitler - it all starts like this: invade countries while the world sits idly by for a while and take your chances. Gain POWER and you are almost an untouchable force. His 'machine' of a demagogue is started and it won't stop until the world makes him come to his knees. Ukraine is in serious danger now and I do worry for it so. . .

As a descendant of the Rurikid line the idea of monarchy is not a bad one (and I am not saying this because my family belongs to the descendants of the nobility and royal lines of long ago in Ukraine and was also actually related to that of Russia via many portals as well) ...as long as it is a constitutional one - however, if it is to work the monarch would have to hold the power of the army to protect the nation from idiots who could sabotage the government and laws could only come into effect when the monarch would sign them into force of law. A good monarch does what is best for their country - you need to find the right person... someone truly dedicated to the country. For this, an elected monarch among 'candidates' might be the best start if this was ever to occur. . .

Right now, Ukraine is in grave danger and nothing good can come out of this. France once stood up to Russia to 'back off' from Ukraine when Russia tried to ransack Kiev during the World Wars and Russia was forced to listen... Why did France do this? Because of its love and memory for one of its Queens: Anna Yaroslavna (Anne of Kiev) - this 'relationship' gave France the 'voice' it needed to tell Russia to withdraw 'or else.' Many European countries will support Ukraine if an armed conflict escalates with Russia and this can be a very dangerous game today. . .

PRAY FOR PEACE!

That is my two cents on this one. . . I have not read all the posts in this thread but I plan to eventually so I may well have other comments coming later on. . .

Best