Elements of Ecclesiastical Law

Does anyone believe the Vatican is talking out of their ass here? Or could they mean what they claim? I take these people very seriously when they make these claims;

Elements of Ecclesiastical Law Vol. 1 53-54 you will find the following:

“The Holy See and civil governments may be annulled by the Pope. Again, it seems to be commonly admitted that in all agreements entered into by the Sovereign Pontiff this condition is understood: Nisi aliud exigat causa gravis et extraordinaria propter bonum commune ecclesiae. (In other words, unless you show cause of extraordinary evidence that you are not ruled by the Pope you’re presumed to be ruled by The Holy See.)

Elements of Ecclesiastical Law Vol. 1 53-54 goes on to say: “no national law can become legitimate except by at least the tacit or legal consent of the Pope. Again, the jus particulare of a nation always remains subject to the authority of the Holy See in such manner as to be repealable at any time by it. Hence, the jus nationtie, or the exceptional ecclesiastical laws prevalent in the United States, may be abolished at any time by the Sovereign Pontiff.”

On the Rights; and Pereogitives Church is necessarily involved, in these things, though they be temporal, the Church may by right exert its power, and the civil state ought to yield.73“-In this proposition is contained the full explanation of the indirect spiritual power of the Church over the state.” The proposition is proved: 1. From reason.-Either the Church has an indirect power over the state, or the state has an indirect power over the Church. Then is no alternative. For, as experience teaches, conflicts may arise between Church and state.” Now, in any question as to the competence of the two powers,” either there must be some judge to decide what docs and what does not fall within their respective spheres, or they are delivered over to perpetual doubt and to perpetual conflict. But who can define what is or is not within the jurisdiction of the Church in faith and morals, except a judge who knows what the sphere of faith and morals contains and how far it extends? 7.

It is clear that the civil power cannot define how far the circumference of faith and morals extends. To do this it must know the whole deposit of explicit and implicit faith. . Therefore, the Church alone can fix the limits of its jurisdiction; and if the Church can fix the limits of its own jurisdiction, it can fix the limits of all other jurisdiction- at least, so as to warn it off its own domain.77 Hence, the Church is supreme in matters of religion and conscience: she knows the limits of her own jurisdiction, and, therefore, also the limits of the competence of the civil power. Again, if it be said that the state is altogether independent of the Church, it would follow 7. that the state would also be independent of the law of God in things temporal; for the divine law must be promulgated by the Church. It is unmeaning to say that princes have no superrior but the law of God;

Card. Tarqu., 1. C., lib. i .. p. 56, n. 55. 7S Manning, 1. C., pp. 70, 71. .• Craiss., n. 698. ,.
Cfr. Phillips, Kirchenr.. vol. iL, pp. 546, 547· .• Manning, 1. C., pp. 54, 55. 77 Cfr. Syllab.
r864, prop. 19, 20, 39, 42, 54′. Cra,ss .. n. 698.
of the Roman Pontiff. 255

7. for a law IS no superior without an authority to judge and to apply it. II. We next prove our thesis from authourity. \We refer to the famous bull Ullam Sallctam, issued by Pope Boniface VIII. in 13°2. This bull declares that there is but one true Church,·· and therefore but one head of the Church-the Roman Pontiff; that there are two swords-i.e., two powers-the spiritual and the temporal; the latter must be subject to the former. The bull finally winds up with this definition: “And this we declare, affirm, define (definimus), and pronounce, that it is necessary for the salvation of every human creature that he should be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” 5′ This is undoubtedly a de fide definition-i.e., an utterance ex cathedra.”‘ In fact, the bull, though occasioned by and published during the contest between Boniface VIlI. and Philip the Fair, King of France-who held that he was in no sense subject to the Roman Pontiff-had for its object, as is evident from its whole tenor and wording, this: to define dogmatically the relation of the Church to the state·’ in general that is, universally, not merely the relations between the Church and the particular state or nation-France. Now, what is .the meanIng of this de fide definition? There are two interpretations: one, given by the enemies of the Papacy, is that the Pope, in this bull, claims,” not merely an indirect, but a direct and absolute, power over the state, thus completely subordinating it to the Church; 5′ that is, subjecting it to the Church, even in purely temporal things. This explanation, given formerly by the partisans of Philip the Fair,by the Regalists in the reign of Louis XIV., and at present by Janus, Dr. Schulte, 7′ Manning,!. C., p. 51. Phillips, 1. C., vol. iii., pp. 256, 257; cfr. Darras, Hist., vol. iii., p. 454.” Fessler, True and False Infallibility, p. 81. •• Manning, I. C., p. 51 82 Phillips, I. C., vol. iii., pp. 255. 256. •• Cfr. ib., p. 206 . Cfr. Manning, I. c, pp. 61-64.

ECCLESIASTICAL EMPIRE

“Those who know what Rome has once been,are best able to appreciate what she is.” – Hallam

Hmmmm….Sounds like we’re nobody’s in no where land..

The United States gave up all rights, title, and interest. If you claim to be a U.S. Citizen by your own admission, you also have no rights, no title, and no interest. “The United States of America by contract, gave up all right, title or interest in said property, without any conditions set forth;” [Ensminger Case 1995]

A.) ‘Our survey of the legal landscape as it existed in March 1989 indicates, that, in general, members of the public have no constitutional right to be protected by the State from harm inflicted by third parties. [E.g., Fox v. Custis, 712 F.2d 84, 88 (4th

Cir. 1983); Wells v. Walker , 852 F.2d 368, 370 (8th Cir. 1988), cert. Denied, 489 U.S. 1012, 109 S.Ct. 1121, 103 L.Ed.2d 184 (1989); Ketchum v. Alameda County, 811 F.2d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 1987); Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982).]

B.) Judge Posner aptly explained the reasoning behind this general principle when he stated in Bowers that:

The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let “We the People of the United States” alone; it does not require their agency federal government or their state(s) to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order….for those not a party to the contract (Constitution).

Thus, because there is no constitutional duty to provide such protection for the Public at Large, {the state’s} failure to do so is not actionable under Title 42, section 1983, of the United States Code (U.S.C.). [emphasis added]

“But indeed, no person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breech of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact (contract), but he is not a party to it. The States are a party to it…” (emphasis added). [Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438 (1854)]

“The People” does not include you and me. “The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests.” [Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore. 32 U.S. 243]

Members of the public have no constitutional right to be protected by the State from harm inflicted by third parties. [E.g., Fox v. Custis, 712 F.2d 84, 88 (4th Cir. 1983); Wells v. Walker , 852 F.2d 368, 370 (8th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1012, 109 S.Ct. 1121, 103 L.Ed.2d 184 (1989); Ketchum v. Alameda County, 811 F.2d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 1987); Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982).]

No constitutional right exists under the Ninth Amendment, or to any other provision of the Constitution of the United States, “…to trust the Federal Government and to rely on the integrity of its pronouncements.” [MAPCO, Inc. v Carter (1978, Em Ct App) 573 F2d 1268, cert den 437 US 904, 57 L Ed 2d 1134, 98 S Ct 3090.]

Members of the public have no right to petition for a redress of grievance. [UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA in the case of “We the People Foundation, Inc. et al. v. United States,” No. 1:04-cv-01211 EGS, admitted in the Civil War era, however, the U. S. Congress enacted Rules abolishing the duty to respond, a change later sanctioned by the Supreme Court [see: 96 Yale Law Journal 142, 164 (1986); Bieregu v. Reno, 59 F.3rd. 1445, 1453, (3rd. Cir. 1995)]. Furthermore, U.S. FEDERAL Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in his Order and Opinion upheld the position of the UNITED STATES et al., to deny the Human Rights of “We the People,” et al., the “Right of Petition” in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DICTRICT OF COLUMBIA on August 31, 2005.]

There are no sovereigns citizens in the United States. That is an oxymoron.

“…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472

Sovereignty: The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any

independent state is governed; supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration… [Blacks Law 5th Edition page 1252]

Subject: Constitutional Law. One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws. The natives of Great Britain are subjects of the British government. Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. [Blacks Law 5th Edition page 1277]

Subject: verb. to bring under one’s control by force of arms — see conquer [Merriam Online Thesaurus] Subjected: transitive verb. [Merriam Online Thesaurus]

1 a : to bring under control or dominion : subjugate b : to make (as oneself) amenable to the discipline and control of a superior

2 : to make liable : predispose

3 : to cause or force to undergo or endure (something unpleasant, inconvenient, or trying)

— sub·jec·tion \ noun

“Citizenship connotes membership in a political society and implies a dutyof permanent allegiance to that society.”

-David Weissbrodt, Immigration Law and Procedure In a Nutshell.Citizenship: The status of being a citizen. See also Corporate citizenship… [Blacks Law 5th Edition page 222]

“Citizenship, is, by definition, a condition of allegiance to, and participation in, a governmental jurisdiction. It means, for a collective order, a pledge of loyalty, commitment to actively participate in civics and community, and willingness to serve when and where called upon. Citizenship begins within the individual but is nurtured by the country.” —Eduardo Aguirre, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Sovereigns are not citizens. Citizens are synonymous with subjects and subjects are synonymous with slaves. As in Subjected. So look at this case again below. Did King George maintain his sovereignty over his subjects? Did the 56 signers of the compact gain their sovereignty because they signed the compact and not the rest of the people? The answer is Yes! As a U.S. Citizen or American, you are a debtor under the 14th amendment, due to your “choice” of nationality.

“…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472 [Padelford Case of 1854 page. 35] *41

“Now the principle at the bottom of all these propositions is this: The States have no power, by the exercise of which, they can defeat all the ends of Government-the General Government, or any of those ends. But the States, by the exercise of the taxing power, can take from their inhabitants every cent the inhabitants can spare, and live. According to the principle of this decision, therefore, the States have no power to lay any tax on their inhabitants; and if they have no power to tax, it follows that they have no power to enable them to keep up their State Governments; and without State Governments, they have no power to keep themselves alive, as States. The principle comes to this: that the States, in making the Constitution, intended to give up the power of self preservation (sovereignty).” [Padelford Case 1854 pg. 35]

State citizens, State nationals, and Sovereign States gave up all power when they signed the constitution. And they weren’t states to begin with they were Royal Charters granted by the King. Something that is granted may be un-granted.

Sovereign States are: States whose subjects or citizens are in the habit of obedience to them… [Blacks Law 5th Edition page 1238]

You are NOT a signatory to the compact or the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America and “they” did not “pledge” for you…”they” did it for “their” posterity. You think that some “colonists” had some right? Then, why did the colonists not participate in any election or any “vote”? During the third presidential election why did only ten governors vote? I will tell you why….”the colonists” had no voice. These men were “proprietors” of company…the East India Company being the “Grand Corporation” with its “red, white, and blue” striped flag.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

So, who did the “establishing and ordaining”???? It was “the People” of the “United States” who “ordained and established” THEIR Con-stitution FOR the United States of America.

Someone established rules and regulations for someone else. The one doing the stablishing and ordaining is in the SUPERIOR POSITION.

Where did they get the authority to do this? Easy: Article 6 clause 1….they assumed the debt repayment assurance of the United States of America to payback the debt to the King….PERIOD.

The word: Country means “to count trees”. It was the “count of the trees” or “The Rent of the Woods” that was an accounting procedure of the Exchequer in the Virginia Company and the East India Company.

You have no rights in the United States, because you are an American debtor under the 14th Amendment. The U.S.A. is bankrupt and has been since the drafting of the Treaty of Paris.

I’d rather be a man myself. Now I could go on, and add 150 or so of more pages verifying this, but then we live in a society with severe attention deficit disorder. They are clearly explaining the difference between the law makers, and the citizens. Problem is the citizens love their servitude. They don’t want to take responsibility to fix anything, they want someone else to do that for them.

They have contractual membership in the corporation they deserve, with fringe benefits that allows them the opportunity to choose another corporate representative to lead the corporation. Candidates are of course pre selected by the corporation itself.

Beatles – Nowhere man – Live in Munich 1966

This version is clearer;

Advertisements

One Response to “Elements of Ecclesiastical Law”

  1. Ownership of Law | there is no debt Says:

    […] Pepe Orsini Hates My Freedom Elements of Ecclesiastical Law https://pepehateme.wordpress.com/2014/04/06/elements-of-ecclesiastical-law/ […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: