CRACKING THE CULT OF THE CONSTITUTION PART 11

https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/cracking-the-cult-of-the-constitution-part-i/

6-24-2016 9-06-24 PM

The bloodline:
Obama is the 22nd Great-Grandson of William the Conqueror

7-22-2016 8-16-44 AM

Considering that law and governments have always been Ecclesiastical in nature – from the Roman civilization to the Vatican to the Kingdom of England and its Divine Church to America itself – this literally makes the church and its government anti-God, for to be against the laws of nature (the natural rights of men) is to be against the laws of God. For God accordingly would be the One who created and is all of nature. And when we consider that every corporate Christian church teaches men to obey the laws of the land, and that the definition for “laws of the land” are in fact of the artificial man-made Masonic governments, its man-made Masonic constitution, and its man-made legal codes that usurp and destroy everything in nature including rights, we can see that the government corporations known as churches and religions are really teaching the opposite of the Biblical story of the living Christ, who taught natural law. The law of the land is not natural law. It is not God’s law. And the law of the land (man’s law) in government is quite often opposite to or anti-Christ’s teachings, certainly quite often anti-life, and definitely anti-nature. For government and religion is of men, not of God.

But when we consider the fact that the corporate “Church” has always been the source of man’s law, a whole new element and historical view of the role of the Church in government and as government rears its ugly head. For the church if anything is against the living Christ in favor of the dead one; ruling in God’s name on Earth while going against the teachings of the Christos as a government supposedly ordained by Go, and even as it promotes the empty promise and anticipation of His return. In the Biblical story of His life, Christ taught God’s natural law. In death, God’s law of nature has been negated by the church/government by the falsely anointed kings, which claim to act through God upon the sacred rite of Christos (Coronation). So how can the church not be called anti-Christ when it claims man’s authority over nature (over God)? For God’s kingdom, if nothing else, is nature itself.

Was Jesus a member of a corporate church or government, or did He deny such temporal and ritualistic things.

Aren’t we to do what Jesus did?

If Jesus were made a citizen of the United States before He could walk, speak, or rationally consent to such a contractual relationship as a constitutor to the United States, what would Jesus do to end that literal bondage? Would he tell his people to obey the law of the land, government, and church?

Would he not instead demand that the modern-day Pharaoh’s of all the nations let his people go in God’s name?

Isn’t being a Christian tantamount to acting in Jesus’ name and teachings?

Isn’t it time to start acting like the Christian you claim to be?

If we really think about it, the dogma within the upper echelon (not the common people) of corporate religion based around their falsely projected Christianity is actually a death cult – worshiping the unnatural state of a man living in death (spirit). Just as they claim to be Jews but are not, they claim to be Christians but are not. All they really are is a spiritual assembly of government (mind control) – the gatekeepers to true spirituality through their rewritten Bibles teachings and ritual.

Whether or not this is a good or bad thing is quite irrelevant, and offense is certainly not the intention here. Again we must remember that the common people of the church who worship individually – as well as the common people of the nation – are not the subject of this writing. For it is the Holy incorporation of the church and its religious doctrine and claimed authorities that is being used by that corporation to claim the power of God on Earth not by the common people, but by these chosen anointed few over the common people and Earth (nature).

We of course see the word spirit in legal definitions, for again we must acknowledge that all law is derived from ecclesiastical sacra-ment and implemented via bloody force (as documented clearly in the Bible and in history).

SPIRITUAL. Relating to religious or ecclesiastical persons or affairs, as distinguished from “secular” or lay, worldly, or business matters. As to spiritual “Corporation”, “Courts”, and “Lords”, see those titles.

SPIRITUALITIES OF A BISHOP. Those profits which a bishop receives in his ecclesiastical character, as the dues arising from his ordaining and instituting priests, and such like, in contradistinction to those profits which he acquires in his temporal capacity as a baron and lord of parliament, and which are termed his “temporalities,” consisting of certain lands, revenues, and lay fees, etc.

SPIRITUALITY OF BENEFICES. In ecclesiastical law. The tithes of land, etc.

BENEFICE. In ecclesiastical law. In its technical sense, this term includes ecclesiastical preferments to which rank or public office is attached, otherwise described as ecclesiastical dignities or offices, such as bishoprics, deaneries, and the like; but in popular acceptation, it is almost invariably appropriated to rectories, vicarages, perpetual curacies, district churches, and endowed chapelries. “Benefice” is a term derived from the feudal law, in which it signified a permanent stipendiary estate, or an estate held by feudal tenure.

BENEFICE. In French law. A benefit or advantage, and particularly a privilege given by the law rather than by the agreement of the parties.

I must declare here that only the demented mind of an attorney or psychopath could create the definition of spirituality as a tithe or profit (money).

The benefits of our United States “politicians” are certainly not based upon an agreement of the people, and are certainly a privilege given to themselves by their own laws for which they themselves create from within their spiritual corporation of public office!!!

And I must say that If God ever does touch down on earth again to reappear in the natural realm as God on Earth and Lord King, He certainly would not need the approval (physical act of anointment) of even the most Saintly of priest, king, queen, government, or parliament. For priests and kings supposedly attain their power from God, not the other way around. God would not need man’s approval or ceremony for anything that He chose to do, if I’m not mistaken. Yet apparently those Popes, priests, kings, queens, and presidents believe that they are all God’s chosen ones to command on behalf of God on Earth from somewhere in the anti-earth (after-life).

Long Live the Queen,
Long Live King Solomon!

In the following video of the coronation of the queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and all of that crown temple’s political land mass possessions, we can clearly see that this is a religious ceremony as opposed to a solely governmental one. This is obvious and is a well known fact, considering the queen or king is also being given the sacramentum (the sacred oath) and becoming the anointed bloodline Masonic head of the Church of England.

The king or queen according to the medieval view was mixta persona (i.e., both layman and ecclesiastic) and therefore obtained spiritualis jurisdictionis capax (a fit subject for spiritual jurisdiction).

That’s right… spiritual jurisdiction; as in the jurisdiction of some other-worldly god.

The Catholic Church explains:

(You may click on the red/blue links for more detail)

“By ministerial authority, which is conferred by an act of consecration, is meant the inward, and, because of its indelible character, permanent capacity to perform acts by which Divine grace is transmitted. By ruling authority, which is conferred by the Church (missio canonica, canonical mission), is understood the authority to guide and rule the Church of God. Jurisdiction, in so far as it covers the relations of man to God, is called jurisdiction of the internal forum or jurisdiction of the forum of Heaven (jurisdictio poli)… Jurisdiction, in so far as it regulates external ecclesiastical relations, is called jurisdiction of the external forum, or briefly jurisdictio fori. This jurisdiction, the actual power of ruling is legislative, judicial, or coactive… Ordinary jurisdiction is that which is permanently bound, by Divine or human law, with a permanent ecclesiastical office. Its possessor is called an ordinary judge. By Divine law the pope has such ordinary jurisdiction for the entire Church and a bishop for his diocese. By human law this jurisdiction is possessed by the cardinals, officials of the Curia and the congregations of cardinals, the patriarchs, primates, metropolitans, archbishops, the praelati nullius, and prelates with quasi-epsicopal jurisdiction, the chapters of orders, or, respectively, the heads of orders, cathedral chapters in reference to their own affairs, the archdiaconate in the Middle Ages, and parish priests in the internal forum… Temporary exercise of ordinary and quasi-ordinary jurisdiction can be granted, in varying degrees, to another as representative, without conferring on him an office properly so called. In this transient form jurisdiction is called delegated or extraordinary, and concerning it canon law, following the Roman law, has developed exhaustive provisions. This development began when the popes, especially since Alexander III (1159-81), found themselves obliged, by the enormous mass of legal business which came to them from all sides as the “judices ordinarii omnium” to hand over, with proper instruction, a large number of cases to third parties for decision, especially in matters of contentious jurisdiction. Delegated jurisdiction rests either on a special authorization of the holders of ordinary jurisdiction (delegatio ab homine), or on a general law (delegatio a lege, a jure, a canone)…

The Church has the right, as a perfect and independent society provided with all the means for attaining its end, to decide according to its laws disputes arising concerning its internal affairs, especially as to the ecclesiastical rights of its members, also to carry out its decision, if necessary, by suitable means of compulsion, contentious or civil jurisdiction. It has, therefore, the right to admonish or warn its members, ecclesiastical or lay, who have not conformed to its laws and also, if needful to punish them by physical means, that is, coercive jurisdiction. The church has, first, the power to judge sin. This it does in the internal forum. But a sin can be at the same time externally a misdemeanour or a crime (delictum, crimen), when threatened with external ecclesiastical or civil punishment. The Church also judges ecclesiastical crimes in the external forum by infliction of penalties, except when the wrong doing has remained secret (Clint says: think secret child ritual sexual abuse). In this case it contents itself, as a rule, with penance voluntarily assumed. Finally, another distinction is to be drawn between necessary jurisdiction and voluntary jurisdiction; the latter contemplates voluntary subjection on the part of those who seek in legal matters the co-operation of ecclesiastical agencies, e.g. notarially executed instruments, testaments, etc. The judicial power described above, jurisdiction strictly so called, was given by Christ to His Church, was exercised by the Apostles, and transmitted to their successors (Matthew 18:15 sqq.; 1 Corinthians 4:21; 5:1 sqq.; 2 Corinthians 13:10; 1 Timothy 1:20; 5:19 sq.).

From the beginning of the Christian religion the ecclesiastical judge, i.e. the bishop, decided matters of dispute that were purely religious in character (causae mere ecclesiasticae). This jurisdiction of the Church was recognized by the civil (imperial) power when it became Christian. But long before this the early Christians, following the exhortation of Saint Paul (1 Corinthians 6:14), were wont to submit to ecclesiastical jurisdiction matters which by their nature belonged to the civil courts. As long as Christianity was not recognized by the State it was left to the conscience of the individual whether he would conform to the decision of the bishop or not. When, however, Christianity had received civil recognition, Constantine the Great raised the former private usage to a public law. According to an imperial constitution of the year 321 the parties in dispute could, by mutual agreement, bring the matter before the bishop even when it was already pending before a civil judge, and the latter (judge) was obliged to put into effect the decision of the bishop. A further constitution of 331 provided that in any stage of the suit any one of the parties could appeal to the bishop even against the will of the others (Hanel, “De constitutionibus, quas F. Sirmondus, Paris, an. 1631 edidit,” 1840). But Arcadius, in 398, and Honorius, in 408, limited the judicial competence of the bishop to those cases in which both parties applied to him (lex VII, Cod. Just., De audientia episc., I, iv). This arbitral jurisdiction of the bishop was not recognized in the new Teutonic kingdoms. In the Frankish kingdoms purely ecclesiastical matters of dispute belonged to the jurisdiction of the bishop, but mixed cases, in which civil interests appeared, e.g. marriage questions, law suits concerning Church property, etc., belonged to the civil courts.

In the course of the Middle Ages the Church succeeded in extending its jurisdiction over all matters that offered an ecclesiastical interest (causae spiritualibus annexae), all litigation concerning marriages (c. vii, X, Qui filii sint legit., IV, xvii; c. vii, X, De donat., IV, xx); matters concerning burial (X, De sepult., III, xxviii); testaments (X, De testam., III, xxvi); compacts ratified with an oath (c. iii, in VI°, De foro compet., II, ii); matters pertaining to benefices (c. ii, X, De suppl. neglig. praelat., I, x); questions of patronage (X, De jur. patron., III, xxxviii); litigation concerning church property and tithes (X, De decim., III, xxx). In addition all civil litigation in which the element of sin was in question (ratio peccati) could be summonded before an ecclesiastical court (c. xiii, X, De judic., II, i).

Ecclesiastical Person

In its etymological sense this expression signifies every person who forms a part of the external and visible society which constitutes the Church, and who has not been canonically expelled therefrom. But the expression is rarely used in this sense; customarily it indicates persons whom a special tie connects with the Church, either because they have received ecclesiastical tonsure, minor, or higher orders, and are a fortiori invested with a power of jurisdiction; or because they have taken vows in a religious order or congregation approved by the Church. This more intimate union with the Church involves particular duties which are not incumbent on the general faithful (see CLERIC).

“Her Majesty being now Anointed; wearing the Colobium Sindonis
and the Supertunica or Close Pall of cloth of gold, together with a girdle of the same,

is seated once more in King Edward’s Chair.”

The Queen, as soon as she enters at the west door of the Church, is to be received with this Anthem:

Psalm 122, 1–3, 6, 7.
I was glad when they said unto me:
We will go into the house of the Lord.
Our feet shall stand in thy gates:
O Jerusalem.
Jerusalem is built as a city:
that is at unity in itself.
O pray for the peace of Jerusalem:
they shall prosper that love thee.
Peace be within thy walls:
and plenteousness within thy palaces.

later, other Psalms are read:

Psalm 84, 9, 10.
Behold, O God our defender:
and look upon the face of thine Anointed.
For one day in thy courts:
is better than a thousand.

I Kings 1, 39, 40.
Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anointed Solomon king;
and all the people rejoiced and said
God save the king,
Long live the king,
May the king live for ever. Amen. Hallelujah.

(**Note: Elizabeth is the blood apparent line of King Solomon, as we can see here by
the “God save; Long live” ceremony that was said for Solomon long ago.
This explains the end goal of all these societies to rebuild the Third Temple
After reestablishing their Kingdom of Jerusalem [Israel].)

And the Archbishop shall…

On the palms of both the hands, saying,
Be thy Hands anointed with holy Oil.

On the breast, saying,
Be thy Breast anointed with holy Oil.

On the crown of the head, saying,
Be thy Head anointed with holy Oil:
as kings, priests, and prophets were anointed:

And as Solomon was anointed king
by Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet,
so be thou anointed, blessed, and consecrated Queen
over the Peoples, whom the Lord thy God
hath given thee to rule and govern,
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Then shall the Dean of Westminster lay the Ampulla and Spoon upon the Altar;
and the Queen kneeling down at the faldstool, the Archbishop shall say this Blessing over her:

Our Lord Jesus Christ,
the Son of God,
who by his Father was anointed with the Oil of gladness
above his fellows,
by his holy Anointing pour down upon your Head and Heart
the blessing of the Holy Ghost,
and prosper the works of your Hands:
that by the assistance of his heavenly grace
you may govern and preserve
the Peoples committed to your charge
in wealth, peace, and godliness;
and after a long and glorious course
of ruling a temporal kingdom
wisely, justly, and religiously,
you may at last be made partaker of an eternal kingdom,
through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

See the full coronation ceremony (rite) as written,
here: http://www.oremus.org/liturgy/coronation/cor1953b.html

“The word ‘amen’ is from Ammon, the father god of Egypt,
and was an ancient Egyptian salutation to the supreme power of the universe”

–Manly P Hall, ‘How To Understand Your Bible’

“For all the promises of God in Him are yea,
and in Him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.”

–Corinthians 1:20, KJB

“To the angel of the Church in Laodicea write:
These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness,
the ruler of God’s creation.”

–Revelation 3:14, KJB

 “For I know that… a Hereditary Monarchy…
only exists with the support and consent of the people”

–Queen Elizabeth II, Nov. 20, 1997

Here, the queen is not simply stating the legal term implying that consent is required of the people for her Sovereignty. She is literally stating that only because the defeated and uneducated people allow this charade of unholy and unnatural government to continue, she and her blood and ilk will continue to rule the people solely because of their lack of resistance and lack of desire to live under God’s natural law. For she knows that control of true Christians under the false ritualized Christian Church and State is imperative to her family rule over all people. The Christian soldiers have lost their way…

10 13 11 flagbar

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: