Thursday, September 30, 2010

Be Subject to Higher Powers, Render to Caesar


also:
Conspiracies of the Jews

Proverbs 26:12: "A prince that gladly heareth lying words, hath all his servants wicked."

There is no secret that we are heading for a one world government, and that most of the governments of developed nations are complicit in the conspiracy, either by choice, or by coercion.  In the face of such a massive diabolical onslaught, it behooves us to examine what the Bible says about authority and rulers, and what notable saints have had to say on this matter, and how these teachings might affect our lives in this troubled age.

(none of this is to be taken as legal advice, I am not a lawyer, this is for information purposes only)

People may be inclined upon researching this information further to get get the impression that it is a means to either get rich or to shirk responsibility in their lives, or worse to be better than those not yet exposed to it.  If that is the impression they get, putting some of the beliefs and principles explored in the article (for the wrong reasons) will almost certainly get them no where good (and this quite suddenly).

Such people will not likely have prepared for or considered the potential risks involved as pertains to the well being of others, children especially, whose morals and chance at salvation almost certainly would be be practically destroyed as a result of the upbringings that might be secured  for them by the State, should the State ever desire to seize their children (for military or other purposes, e.g. a soldier, cheap and expendable, a research "assistant", etc.) or re-delegate custody over them (foster homes).  That is where their (both parties) dreams will die.

Moreover, it can be well argued this information, though it serves a highly invaluable purpose, may be too involved for this person or that person or family to practically apply without undergoing far more change, hardship and persecution than either they can or should reasonably bear.



To the matter at hand:  The Common Law of the Land

It is usual for public officers to take an oath to uphold the law, obey lawful authority and serve the common good. The following is from one of the Common Wealth countries:


These are the members of the territorial police forces in England and Wales which are responsible for general policing . The Police Reform Act 2002 requires the constable of a territorial police force to take the following oath:

England and Wales - Constables appointed under the Police Acts, English form:

"I, ... of ... do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."

Many people may see the words "and truly serve the Queen," and get the idea that this necessarily means the Queen is above the law, though I think that most would likely not realize openly that they held such a position, since the general suppositions proposed to the masses in media are deliberately aimed at meaningless nonsense.  Growing up as a kid, it never once occurred to me to ask the question "Do I have to do everything the Queen says?", as my country is a common Wealth country as well)."

I did not think openly, or at least consciously, that the Queen was above the law!  GOD FORBID! 

Roman 13:1: "Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God."

St. John Chrysostom: Homily 23 on Romans (13:1: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers."): "Of this subject he makes much account in other epistles also, setting subjects under their rulers as household servants are under their masters. And this he does to show that it was not for the subversion of the commonwealth that Christ introduced His laws, but for the better ordering of it, and to teach men not to be taking up unnecessary and unprofitable wars 

[...]

"For he bears not the sword in vain. You see how he has furnished him with arms, and set him on guard like a soldier, for a terror to those that commit sin. For he is the minister of God to execute wrath, a revenger upon him that does evil. Now lest you should start off at hearing again of punishment, and vengeance, and a sword, he says again that it is God's law he is carrying out. For what if he does not know  it himself? Yet it is God that has so shaped things (οὕτως ἐτύπωσεν). If then, whether in punishing, or in honoring, he be a Minister, in avenging virtue's cause, in driving vice away, as God wills, why be captious against him, when he is the cause of so many good doings, and paves the way for yours too?"

Having never seen these quotations of St. John Chrysostom before, I have never understood the verse from Romans 13:1 so plainly before.  Yet, having been programmed into never even questioning the ramifications, or even conceiving of them, of an unlawful act committed by a king, queen or governor or other pubic official while executing the functions of office in a sense much different to how I would have had this argument been proposed to me long ago.  But when it became obvious that the subjection due to rulers was literally, subjection DUE, that is owed to them for honourably and rightly occupying the office they held, which above all includes supporting the common good and the preservation of the inalienable God given rights present in every human being by nature.  These rights are possessed by Caesar in common with every man.

St. Matthew 22:36-40: "Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.  On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets."

The whole law, then, which applies to every man, binds Caesar to desire and work for nothing other than the well being of his fellow men, for the sake of God.  The power that is given him therefore, is expressly given for the purpose alone of accomplishing the common good.  And we know according to the Catholic Faith, that God does not ordain, that is expressly will, men to sin, but rather permits us the free will to accept or reject the noble burden of servitude.  By rejecting this burden, once one has pledged himself to support it then, is a failure in rendering to God what is owed to God.

This means that the State, or the assembly of individuals for the governance of the community, must be answerable to the people that make up the community, whose collective and individual rights it must guarantee and protect, or suffer the consequences as a treasonous assembly. God being the highest sovereign and legislator, there is no higher treason than to make legal that which is manifestly opposed to the natural, the divine, or the ecclesiastical law.

An example of such unlawful legislation is the Amendment to the US Constitution which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".  Notwithstanding the inalienable  rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution (NOT granted, but guaranteed) the Constitution of the Unites States denies the Church her God given right as the religion of the State and in this regard is both heretical and schismatic.  It is unlawful.

St. Matthew 22:21: "They say to him: Caesar's. Then he saith to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God, the things that are God's."

What God gives to the ruler, leader, servant, He exacts at a demanding price on the day of Judgement, and the timid or those with a weak conscience need not apply, nor the prideful, lest they direct not only a just remittance of the debt owed by the people to the ruler for his service in doing and upholding the good, but also lest the honour due to God be payed rather to themselves or to other mere creatures.  Those who occupy such offices or seek to do so ought to be certain that a considerable effort is paid to the cultivation of virtue within his own actions and dispositions.

St. Mark 4:24: "Take heed what you hear. In what measure you shall mete, it shall be measured to you again, and more shall be given to you."Christ says "hear" but we may also reasonably understand Him through this and others of His sayings to warn us thus: "Take heed what you do."

If through a want of the necessary virtue a ruler takes little heed of what he does, and acts contrary to this, what he proposes as public service, may be more inclined to take on the character of tyranny, for which the Lord will demand a price: "In what measure you shall mete, it shall be measured to you again, and more shall be given to you".

Since Caesar ought to have given in faithfulness and loyalty to God, by way of treating his subjects justly, by contributing to and never hindering their peace and well being in this world and the next, and has come up empty handed, God has above shown that it is His will that the same be measured against such rulers.

When Caesar usurps the honour that ought to be paid to God, the lawful channel of obedience has been ruptured.  For is we give to Caesar what is truly his, then we give him something he has not stolen.  But God gives Caesar freely the power to rule, but in no way is this licence to sin, nor is it a gift that cannot be revoked.

1 Kings 15:26: "And Samuel said to Saul: I will not return with thee, because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord hath rejected thee from being king over Israel."

Therefore, if Caesar should sin against his subjects, whom God entrusted to him, then he is rejecting the word of the Lord, and the inevitable result is that Caesar will be rejected as king.  How clearly these two verses interact to show the figure by which the world was preknown by God to depart from His laws?

But does this grant licence to oppose such rulers by sinning?  GOD FORBID! Remember that the whole law depends on love of God and love of neighbour for the sake of God.  Therefore none may, by sinning, take, claim or exercise authority while simultaneously rejecting the source of the authority by their actions.  For if they had a legitimate claim to do so, then so did the tyrant they are trying to dethrone.  This is obvious hypocrisy.

Therefore, when it is clear that the powers that be have no longer any lawful claim to authority, those who would then claim and exercise authority must do so only in accordance with the laws of God.



Roman 13:1: "Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God."

There is no power, except that which comes from God, neither temporal or secular, nor natural or supernatural.  As such all in power who commit open rebellion against God in their actions to the contrary of the true and highest law, lose the debt of honour aand subjection that was previously owed to them by virtue of the oath they pledged to God and to man for the sake of God.

How easily our rulers and public officials forget the true law!  This is only worsened by the fact that our systems of government no longer honour and rever God as the Sovereign Creator and very author of all authority.  An example of this is clear in the revised version of the oath of office taken by police officers in Canada, which permits them to ignore God altogether:

POLICE SERVICES ACT, April 28, 2010:

Police officer, etc.
2.  The oath or affirmation of office to be taken by a police officer, special constable or First Nations Constable shall be in one of the following forms set out in the English or French version of this section:

I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Her Majesty the Queen and to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, preserve the peace, prevent offences and discharge my other duties as (insert name of office) faithfully, impartially and according to law.

So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.)

or

I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, preserve the peace, prevent offences and discharge my other duties as (insert name of office) faithfully, impartially and according to law.

So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.)


By pledging allegiance to the king or queen, for example, one is pledging allegiance to God Himself, THROUGH the king, who has himself sworn before God to do that which is good in His sight, by taking a coronation oath, that is through the ruler who is exercising his office for the good of the kingdom, and not to its injury.

Yet forgetfulness of God (such as omitting "So help he God", from whom all strength comes) has led to countless acts against the common good on behalf of the rulers in the Common Wealth, and those in authority; duly sworn Peace Officers, Judges, Ministers, Senators, Governors, Congressman, Members of Parliament, etc. through the pride and greed of their agendas, or through the capitulation that such agendas receive from even the well intentioned sworn public officials when evil men bring blackmail and extortion, threatening to reveal or call public attention to their past or secret sins.

Maxim in Law: "An office ought to be injurious to no one."


Lawful Rebellion

That we may not sin in opposing such tyrants has been sufficiently proved above insofar as justice is concerned.  We may not steal that which is owed to God, namely his obedience, and we cannot steal from Caesar that which is owed to him, namely what he has given of himself in support of the common good, in return for the power he has received.

How then does it come about that such a thief may be dealt with?

Around the turn of the 13th century AD, Catholic England (i.e. Catholic was the religion of State, that which the rulers professed publicly), was outraged at the behaviour of King John of England, who was felt to be governing unjustly.  At the same time, King John was attempting to push his temporal authority into the ecclesiastical realm, where it never belonged.

Hence John became involved in a dispute with Pope Innocent III, and among the end results were a charter of rights and freedoms, which were to be guaranteed to every subject of King John, and a right the expression of which can be described as the orthodox version of religious liberty, that is liberty not of any or all religions, but liberty of the Church to exercise her right as sole legislator of spiritual matters (in this case the appointment of bishops).  He signed, begrudgingly it is said, thereby promising that he would not violate the rights of his subjects or of the Church (Learn more of what followed here).

Since the Magna Carta was never abolished, it then formed the basis for all systems of law that would arise in the nations of the British Commonwealth.  Therefore any subsequent law that should arise and contradict the rights guaranteed by the Magna Carta would not have any truly lawful force.  The only power these would have is the power perceived in them by those who do not know any better.

Maxim in Law: "Ignorance of the Law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all a sworn officer of the law."

This being so, all public officials ought to tremble at the debt they owe, of the peace and well being of the souls entrusted to their care, to Almighty God who will mete back (and then some), either good or bad, what they themselves meted out to the souls in their care.


Under article 61 of Magna Carta the people of the community have a right to enter into lawful rebellion if they are being governed unjustly. The rulers are only there to govern, not to oppress, and this must be done within the constraint of the laws of love God and love neighbour for the sake of God.  The people have the power to affirm their rights, and to peacefully reject and oppose any attempt made by any Parliament, Congress, Senate, or other legislature, to remove those rights, and even the right to take up arms in defense of them when no other option presents itself and when the motives would be justice alone.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 41, Art. 1: "But in him who defends himself, it may be without sin, or it may sometimes involve a venial sin, or sometimes a mortal sin; and this depends on his intention and on his manner of defending himself. For if his sole intention be to withstand the injury done to him, and he defend himself with due moderation, it is no sin, and one cannot say properly that there is strife on his part. But if, on the other hand, his self-defense be inspired by vengeance and hatred, it is always a sin. It is a venial sin, if a slight movement of hatred or vengeance obtrude itself, or if he does not much exceed moderation in defending himself: but it is a mortal sin if he makes for his assailant with the fixed intention of killing him, or inflicting grievous harm on him."

Genesis 1:26-30: "And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion  over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.  And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.  And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.  And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat:  And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done."

The above rights were bestowed upon man collectively, and not in such a way as that one man could infringe upon the rights of any other; that would be unlawful:

Romans 2:11-13: "For there is no respect of persons with God.  For whosoever have sinned without the law, shall perish without the law; and whosoever have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law.  For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified"

Since all are equal before the law, then, it follows that all are entitled, by nature, to life, freedom and a necessary share of the goods of the earth, in accordance with true justice and in such proportion as that they should be able to fulfill the command given to fill the earth.

When these natural rights are attacked, they can only be preserved by he who would lawfully claim them and exercise them.  After all, Christ said to render to Caesar what is Caesar's - not to relinquish to Caesar what is rightfully our own.


Further recommended reading
Homily 23 on Romans, St. John Chrysostom (407).
A pope cannot be a heretic; a heretic cannot be pope (God has provided his Catholic religion with similar legislation in the Divine law; and a sentence for spiritual rulers which mirrors that in 1st Kings 15:26)

2 comments:

  1. If the constitution of the U.S.A is heretical and schismatic to the Catholic Church(and Catholics aren't supposed to support in anyway or be for the separation of church and state) then why did so many Catholics immigrate to the U.S.A and became citizens of the U.S.A ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. How am I supposed to answer your question? Are you asking me to read the minds of millions of people who have passed away? I will simply answer your question with a question just like yours:

    If Arianism is heresy, why did so many Catholics fall into it?

    ReplyDelete