As far as freemasonry goes, I found Msgr. George F. Dillion's book: The Grand Orient: freemasonry exposed, to be an excellent primer and Pope Leo XIII 's papal encyclical Human Genus is excellent too. As far as history goes, The Church on the eve of the reformation by Msgr. Phillip Hughes is excellent as well, he's one of the few who has a objective take on Father Girolamo Savonarola. I apologize for mistakes in spelling and grammar, I'm a product of the American public school system. 😵💫
I accidentally deleted my apology, still learning this platform, I actually WELCOME open and inquiring minds for questions. If the OP, could clarify what topics I recommend books for.
Please Kurgan don't hold me responsible for my overly confident, sensitive, INSANELY IGNORANT countrymen. I'm a Sedevacantist FIRST and a American because I guess God DOES have a sense of humor. 🫡😉😏
I have a question. How should I go about learning about Roman Contract Law? What books should I read? I've never studied law before.
I also just acquired a 1929 Douay-Rheims Bible. I've only skimmed it, but I'm already seeing subtle differences between this and the 1960 New Catholic Edition of the Holy Bible that I have read. I've never read the KJV Bible.
I now also have a physical copy of the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law, but I don't quite know what to do with it. I've only skimmed it. Do I read it? Do I memorize it? Is the purpose of the book to help us understand Vatican I (pre-Vatican II) Church administration? How do the contents of the book affect the lives of ordinary Sedevacantist Catholics? Or how do the contents of the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law affect people who do not belong to any specific denomination, but are just searching for truth?
The Catholic Church operates first and foremost on God's Laws and rules, which by default, since God operates primarily with reason and logic (even if at levels that go beyond our ability to total comprehend in some instances) rest on good logic. Roman Law predates the existence of the Catholic Church since it existed prior to Jesus's arrival on Earth. As the Catholic Church made its home base, so to speak, in Rome, and became more influential it went from living within the zeitgeist of original Roman Law (which had for example various distinctions of how to treat a Roman citizen compared to a foreigner) to influencing it and changing it. Roman Law currently, as improved by Catholicism, makes no distinction between people on the basis of their citizenship for example. The progression obviously was relatively gradual at first, and there isn't a precise date you can specifically point to, other than perhaps the production of the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law of 1917, but partial versions of attempts to codify all of Catholic dogma were made before 1917, and it is in any case already evident in the works of people like St. Augustine and mostly St. Thomas Aquinas. If you study church history and the writings of the early patristic fathers and also study Roman Law before Christ, the change is fairly obvious.
aaandd here we have the typical liar and non-christian response of your average Protestant retard.
Too stupid to understand that Roman Law predates Anglo Laws.
Too stupid to understand that Anglo Law being "based on" Roman Law does not mean it is in any way the same or that it even operates on the same underlying premises.
Too stupid to know anything about Christianity at all.
Too much of an incel to have any kind of normal relationship with women in general, from his mother all the way to actually ever having a relationship with a woman.
Too full of rage against women in general (because he clearly never gets any) to be in any way rational.
Too stupid and dishonest to tell the truth about how Catholics see Mary, and so makes stuff up out of whole (and typically Prottie) cloth.
I think we have seen all we need to. Hence permabanned. And we only let him ramble on this long to prove the above points.
Matthew 16:18. Do you consider yourself a Christian when you literally insult Our Lord by claiming the Pope during the time of the Protestant wreckovation was Satan’s vassal?
Read the Catena Aurea. St Thomas Aquinas put it together and the commentary is from the Church Fathers. Take some time to digest it before spewing nonsense.
I think you have mommy issues and a severe case of religion envy sir. My recommendation is that you talk to the world renown Bishop Sanborn who helps ignorant pagans rationalize their theology deficiency complex......🧐
You are now flat out lying and are now banned. Matthew 16:16 says no such thing. And no Catholic has ever believed the absurd nonsense you Protties spout as the sheer idiocy it is.
If Roman law was the magic you suggest then the senate could have got rid of the emperor and restored the republic by your word magic of "case law all liquidated magically bro." But they couldn't. Rome had to fall and be replaced. "But there's no case law in Roman law" will say the guy who already equated canon law with case law. And there is always case law. Saying there isn't just shows you're special pleading.
There is a difference between true justice and precedent. English common law used to be OK. English contract law is excellent. But the recent perversions of this are bad, very bad. I am less convinced Napoleonic law was good from the beginning, but the activist French judges are evil. Roman law? For human law, fairly good. Canon law? generally better. But both have been perverted by lawyers.
I am not bagging the current Catholic Church here, but all large groups of such. Don't start me on how the lawyers have perverted the Church. I walked out of a service on Sunday when the priest -- in all seriousness -- said the treaty of Waitangi was a consitutional foundation of the church. Untrue. The foundation of the church is CHrist.
That it "used to be OK" is debatable. You guys used to draw and quarter people for stealing a loaf of bread, in numbers that out-did the ENTIRE Spanish Inquisition in a couple of years.
But leaving that aside... even if I granted the point, the issue is that since case law builds up, it is an inevitable progression of degradation.
English contract law is "passable" IF you are only aware of that kind of law. And it certainly is better than US "law", but it by no means compare to Roman Contract Law. I did contract Law for over 30 years, mostly under English Common Law or US (absurdist loophole "Law"). So I'm not just whistling Dixie. Roman Contract Law does in 3 pages what in the UK takes 300.
Canon Law has NOT been perverted by anyone. It was finalised in 1917 and there has been no change to it at all, not any required, nor even any record of anyone finding ANYTHING wrong with it for now over 100 years. And remember where you are. I am a Sedevacantist, which are the ONLY Actual Catholics left. Vatican II Novus Ordo Church saying they are the Catholic Church has less veracity than me saying I am a 3 foot pigmy.
Can you read? Because this was answered in the original post. Seriously, what is wrong with you? How can you even ask this question as if it was not explained already in the post? The age of the Cardinals is NOT part of Canon Law. It was put in there by the fake Popes AFTER Canon Law was codefied in 1917. Serioulsy... what is wrong with you? Are you so twisted in your head you can literally read something that answers your fake question, ignore it and then go ahead and like a mouth-breathing retard type the same question out again? What do you think you need to do to fix that? Because you should get on it right away.
Lafayette definitely was, though not a minister. I found it interesting that Google’s AI asserted the Comte de Vergennes was a Freemason.
And of course it is still honest enough to note that when Franklin was in Paris, the fact that he was a Freemason helped in his making the connections he needed to in the French court.
I was thinking history and Freemasonry’s attacks against the Church. For example I am reading a translation of Msgr Delassus’s “Anti-Christian Conspiracy”, which I think fits that bill.
And by now I am assuming that if they did not play a leading role in events like the Spanish Civil War or 1848 that that is an anomaly. But I have not looked for books specific to those events yet.
Let's try this again, and see if it sticks, 🙄 The Grand Orient: freemasonry exposed by Msgr. George F. Dillion is an excellent primer on free masonry and I also recommend the Papal Encyclical Human Genus by Pope Leo XIII. As far as Church history goes, I can't recommend A history of the Church by Msgr. Phillip Hughes enough!! He's one of the few objective observers of Father Girolamo Savonarola.
Is substack a google app? Because my first reply appears to have been deleted and I have had censorship problems with google....
As far as freemasonry goes, I found Msgr. George F. Dillion's book: The Grand Orient: freemasonry exposed, to be an excellent primer and Pope Leo XIII 's papal encyclical Human Genus is excellent too. As far as history goes, The Church on the eve of the reformation by Msgr. Phillip Hughes is excellent as well, he's one of the few who has a objective take on Father Girolamo Savonarola. I apologize for mistakes in spelling and grammar, I'm a product of the American public school system. 😵💫
I accidentally deleted my apology, still learning this platform, I actually WELCOME open and inquiring minds for questions. If the OP, could clarify what topics I recommend books for.
The French financing of the American revolution. I forget book titles but few and far between and the ones I got some info on were italian i think.
It is a obscure but documented fact that Benjamin Franklin was the liaison between the French and American freemasons.
Ann barnhardt may also have info on that
Please Kurgan don't hold me responsible for my overly confident, sensitive, INSANELY IGNORANT countrymen. I'm a Sedevacantist FIRST and a American because I guess God DOES have a sense of humor. 🫡😉😏
As a Catholic I tend to not judge "en masse". Well... except when doing orbital bombardments, which are essentially "pour encourager les autres"
Except the stubborn and the proud NEVER learn....🙄
I have a question. How should I go about learning about Roman Contract Law? What books should I read? I've never studied law before.
I also just acquired a 1929 Douay-Rheims Bible. I've only skimmed it, but I'm already seeing subtle differences between this and the 1960 New Catholic Edition of the Holy Bible that I have read. I've never read the KJV Bible.
I now also have a physical copy of the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law, but I don't quite know what to do with it. I've only skimmed it. Do I read it? Do I memorize it? Is the purpose of the book to help us understand Vatican I (pre-Vatican II) Church administration? How do the contents of the book affect the lives of ordinary Sedevacantist Catholics? Or how do the contents of the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law affect people who do not belong to any specific denomination, but are just searching for truth?
This is a pertinent question and deserves a blog post on its own.
Dude, are you being sardonic? 🤔
When did the Catholic Church begin operating according to Roman Law? And can you prove it began then and not later?
The Catholic Church operates first and foremost on God's Laws and rules, which by default, since God operates primarily with reason and logic (even if at levels that go beyond our ability to total comprehend in some instances) rest on good logic. Roman Law predates the existence of the Catholic Church since it existed prior to Jesus's arrival on Earth. As the Catholic Church made its home base, so to speak, in Rome, and became more influential it went from living within the zeitgeist of original Roman Law (which had for example various distinctions of how to treat a Roman citizen compared to a foreigner) to influencing it and changing it. Roman Law currently, as improved by Catholicism, makes no distinction between people on the basis of their citizenship for example. The progression obviously was relatively gradual at first, and there isn't a precise date you can specifically point to, other than perhaps the production of the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law of 1917, but partial versions of attempts to codify all of Catholic dogma were made before 1917, and it is in any case already evident in the works of people like St. Augustine and mostly St. Thomas Aquinas. If you study church history and the writings of the early patristic fathers and also study Roman Law before Christ, the change is fairly obvious.
aaandd here we have the typical liar and non-christian response of your average Protestant retard.
Too stupid to understand that Roman Law predates Anglo Laws.
Too stupid to understand that Anglo Law being "based on" Roman Law does not mean it is in any way the same or that it even operates on the same underlying premises.
Too stupid to know anything about Christianity at all.
Too much of an incel to have any kind of normal relationship with women in general, from his mother all the way to actually ever having a relationship with a woman.
Too full of rage against women in general (because he clearly never gets any) to be in any way rational.
Too stupid and dishonest to tell the truth about how Catholics see Mary, and so makes stuff up out of whole (and typically Prottie) cloth.
I think we have seen all we need to. Hence permabanned. And we only let him ramble on this long to prove the above points.
Matthew 16:18. Do you consider yourself a Christian when you literally insult Our Lord by claiming the Pope during the time of the Protestant wreckovation was Satan’s vassal?
Read the Catena Aurea. St Thomas Aquinas put it together and the commentary is from the Church Fathers. Take some time to digest it before spewing nonsense.
I think you have mommy issues and a severe case of religion envy sir. My recommendation is that you talk to the world renown Bishop Sanborn who helps ignorant pagans rationalize their theology deficiency complex......🧐
You are now flat out lying and are now banned. Matthew 16:16 says no such thing. And no Catholic has ever believed the absurd nonsense you Protties spout as the sheer idiocy it is.
If Roman law was the magic you suggest then the senate could have got rid of the emperor and restored the republic by your word magic of "case law all liquidated magically bro." But they couldn't. Rome had to fall and be replaced. "But there's no case law in Roman law" will say the guy who already equated canon law with case law. And there is always case law. Saying there isn't just shows you're special pleading.
Again, you are a moron and you're not even understanding the basic points being made. Stop commenting here on things you clearly don't grasp.
There is a difference between true justice and precedent. English common law used to be OK. English contract law is excellent. But the recent perversions of this are bad, very bad. I am less convinced Napoleonic law was good from the beginning, but the activist French judges are evil. Roman law? For human law, fairly good. Canon law? generally better. But both have been perverted by lawyers.
I am not bagging the current Catholic Church here, but all large groups of such. Don't start me on how the lawyers have perverted the Church. I walked out of a service on Sunday when the priest -- in all seriousness -- said the treaty of Waitangi was a consitutional foundation of the church. Untrue. The foundation of the church is CHrist.
That it "used to be OK" is debatable. You guys used to draw and quarter people for stealing a loaf of bread, in numbers that out-did the ENTIRE Spanish Inquisition in a couple of years.
But leaving that aside... even if I granted the point, the issue is that since case law builds up, it is an inevitable progression of degradation.
English contract law is "passable" IF you are only aware of that kind of law. And it certainly is better than US "law", but it by no means compare to Roman Contract Law. I did contract Law for over 30 years, mostly under English Common Law or US (absurdist loophole "Law"). So I'm not just whistling Dixie. Roman Contract Law does in 3 pages what in the UK takes 300.
Canon Law has NOT been perverted by anyone. It was finalised in 1917 and there has been no change to it at all, not any required, nor even any record of anyone finding ANYTHING wrong with it for now over 100 years. And remember where you are. I am a Sedevacantist, which are the ONLY Actual Catholics left. Vatican II Novus Ordo Church saying they are the Catholic Church has less veracity than me saying I am a 3 foot pigmy.
If canon law is perfect why are you arguing for throwing out its provision on the number of cardinals and their age etc?
Can you read? Because this was answered in the original post. Seriously, what is wrong with you? How can you even ask this question as if it was not explained already in the post? The age of the Cardinals is NOT part of Canon Law. It was put in there by the fake Popes AFTER Canon Law was codefied in 1917. Serioulsy... what is wrong with you? Are you so twisted in your head you can literally read something that answers your fake question, ignore it and then go ahead and like a mouth-breathing retard type the same question out again? What do you think you need to do to fix that? Because you should get on it right away.
Interesting theory. So Louis XVI was baited into bankruptcy by his ministers? That’s quite believable. Were the ministers known Freemasons?
Yes, they were. And so was Garfiled (US President) and pretty much all of the others too.
Lafayette definitely was, though not a minister. I found it interesting that Google’s AI asserted the Comte de Vergennes was a Freemason.
And of course it is still honest enough to note that when Franklin was in Paris, the fact that he was a Freemason helped in his making the connections he needed to in the French court.
I find it interesting you had to Google the information instead of reading it like a literate adult.....
I felt like kicking the tires on Google AI and comparing to what I remembered from reading.
Would you have any books covering that period of history that you recommend? I am not as well read on it as I would like.
In what freemasonry or True Catholism?
Ameet is a most serious Catholic and friend, no need to needle him.
And I genuinely couldn't understand the context of the question.
I was thinking history and Freemasonry’s attacks against the Church. For example I am reading a translation of Msgr Delassus’s “Anti-Christian Conspiracy”, which I think fits that bill.
And by now I am assuming that if they did not play a leading role in events like the Spanish Civil War or 1848 that that is an anomaly. But I have not looked for books specific to those events yet.
Let's try this again, and see if it sticks, 🙄 The Grand Orient: freemasonry exposed by Msgr. George F. Dillion is an excellent primer on free masonry and I also recommend the Papal Encyclical Human Genus by Pope Leo XIII. As far as Church history goes, I can't recommend A history of the Church by Msgr. Phillip Hughes enough!! He's one of the few objective observers of Father Girolamo Savonarola.
I have a link to a website for Traditional Catholic books if your interested.
As well as Jefferson and Washington, and many others.