Royalty and Nobility

The Spiritual and Apostolic Nature of Royal Selection 

+++David
Metropolitan Archbishop

The Apostolic Commission on Royalty and Nobility of the Spanish Orthodox Church and Ecumenical Apostolic Chaplain Service

Abstract

This paper is an analysis of the spiritual, historical and apostolic character of the creation of royalty. The analysis and synthesis includes an overview of topics and historical events within a Biblical, catholic and apostolic context. The paper attempts to provide a simple historical and basic theological framework for the creation of royalty within the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.” The idea of “fons honorum” is explored and discusses it in a context of historical reality and Judeo-Christian origins of royalty. A Biblical case for apostolic knighthood via the escopate without need for secular royalty is included.

The Spiritual and Apostolic Nature of Royal Selection in the Catholic and Apostolic Church

Chapter One

Holy Men, Holy Oil and Christian Kings

Some individuals hold that the pope is somehow a “king maker” and an source of nobility because of his status as a prince. This requires an analysis of the true history of the principality of the Vatican city-state, the defunct papal states and the role of senior bishops in the creation of royalty.

The notion that the pope is somehow entitled to make a king because he is “like a king” (prince) who ruled the papal states and later the Vatican City does not square with logic. The spiritual significance of anointing by senior bishops of the apostolic succession in coronations as well as its roots in ancient Judaism refute that assertion.

Duchy of Rome Not Under the Pope

Looking back into history, donations of lands and buildings from the time of the very early church was not a "state" but church property referred to as the "patrimony of Peter."(1) It was a collection of properties owned by the see of Rome --the church. Rome was a Byzantine duchy—part of the exarchate and governed civilly by a secular official legally independent of the pope. (2)

Pepin III Not of Royal Blood, Donated Real Estate to St. Peter

Much has been made of the “papal states” as the historical rationale for the pope being a “fons honorum” and such. It is therefore helpful to see how the “patrimony of St. Peter” and the “papal states” started and by whom.

We begin with a key figure in the beginning of Germanic kingship and historical precedent. Pepin III made his donations to the pope as successor of St. Peter; it was specifically to St. Peter that the lands were given. (3) The "mayor of the palace," Pepin III, was not fully a king until an archbishop (Boniface) anointed him (4). Pepin the Short, as he was also called, or "Pippin" (Pepin III) was crowned at Soissons in 751 AD and consecrated (anointed) king at Saint Denis cathedral in 754 AD by Saint Boniface,archbishop, whom also was called Winfred. (5) The point here is that Pepin III was not of royal blood. The mayors of the palace were not royalty. They exercised power, true; yet, one can not say that they were any more a king than one could say a British Prime Minister is one. (6) (7)

The crown was not given by the pope in Pepin's case; that was done by the Franks after his election. Again, archbishop Boniface anointed Pepin III first; the pope did it again so as to make sure no one would question the validity of Pepin and his new kingdom. (8) The Germanic tribes tended to elect their kings (9) (10) So the fact is that the German kings were elected and anointed by a senior bishop to create their royal status.

So what we have here is a “nonroyal” elected by tribes and made a king by an archbishop first. So that the creation of new royalty would not be questioned, the pope performed it again. This “non royal” that was made a royal by bishops, gave real estate to “St. Peter”; this, of course, was the church.

Christian Kings Model on the Kings of Israel With Anointing

As in the case of Pepin, we see elsewhere in other Christian cultures the king or emperor was anointed by an archbishop, patriarch or pope (11) following the model of the Old Testament anointing of the kings of Israel by the prophets (12) For example we see patriarchs coronating Bulgarian and Serbian kings (13).

Role of Archbishops

Conrad II, the Emperor, was coronated king of Italy by an archbishop before he was coronated emperor by the pope (14) (15) (16) There are detailed manuscripts of rubrics of coronations in France describing the role of an archbishop in performing it as well (17).

After the pope stopped performing coronations of emperors, the archbishops of Mainz continued administering it themselves crowning the emperors-elect as kings of the Romans (18) Otto I was coronated by the archbishop of Mainz in Aachen (19) It is clear that Germanic royalty became royalty from election and by anointing of archbishops and or the pope as apostolic successors not because they were secular royals themselves.

More on History: Kings of Israel Anointed

Historically, anointing was the way that a king was made in Israel ; a crown was not even necessary. Looking at Old Testament origins we see this: "Then Samuel, with the horn of oil in hand, anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon David from that day forward.” (Samuel 16:13) (20) It was that same "spirit of the Lord" that the Christian kings wished to receive in the church by archbishops, patriarchs and popes.

Why Christian Kings Came to Archbishops, Patriarchs and Popes

The kings were coming to the archbishops, patriarchs and the popes because they were holy men of Godand recognized as such. They came seeking the “spirit of God” to be upon them.

For a person to take the position that a king would have to make another king would be similar to advocating the position, for example, that King David was not a king because Saul did not make him one! It was the prophet Samuel that anointed David the king. David was not royal blood when it was done. There was no election either.

Where royalty was purely hereditary, we continue to see the anointing by a patriarch or archbishop during the coronation; this was the case with the English, Byzantine and Frankish kings (21).

Chapter Two

Fons Honorum vrs. Fons Spiritu Santus

Introduction

There has been much discussion about the idea of “Fons Honorum”—the “fountain of honors” concept. The question is this: what type of person can bestow titles of nobility, royalty, knighthood, and such?

We have already seen that a prophet of God made a king—without an election. We have seen that a person that was not a royal could be elected and then anointed by an archbishop and become a royal (Pepin). We need to ask ourselves this: To whom do we point as the primary actor in the creation of royalty? Is it man or God? Clearly, in king David’s case it was God. Was the process then corrupted over time?

The Holy Spirit Acts Through Bishops

I have previously stated that my position is that bishops do not establish a fons honorum nor carry it. I have said this because the evidence indicates that bishops of the Apostolic Succession do not need it. My view is that fons honorum as it is touted today is a concept conjured up by worldly men for the earthly dominions and does not apply to bishops of the Apostolic Succession. My thesis is that any bishop of the Apostolic Succession is a “fons spiritu sanctus” because from his hands flow the Holy Spirit in ordination to Holy Orders and the other 6 sacraments. Either God does acts through the bishops or not. Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches believe that God does act through the bishops in the sacraments of the church and Ecumenical Councils.

Bishops as Successors of the Apostles to Rule the Church

As we know, bishops are the successors of the Apostles of Christ (22)and may invoke the blessing of Almighty God upon anyone deemed worthy. Bishops rule a diocese. They govern the church and provide the sacraments through the Holy Spirit. Individuals that oppose their authority are warned not to do that but to follow them "Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (bishops). Be shepherds of the church of God , which he bought with his own blood." (Acts 20:28). (Overseers and bishops are from the same word in Greek: episkopeos.

Bishops as Free Actors Governing the Church

Bishops may choose to recognize any royal titles that we choose. Normally we do not issue them ourselves. (Even so, a Biblical case could be made for it based upon the case of king David.) Can a bishop bless a man to be a knight? I believe that this has a much clearer Biblical context for precedent. Let us look at early Christian history.

Apostles as the First Knights

The first militarized Christian “Religious” were the apostles! They carried swords authorized by Christ into the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26: 36-56). (Christ did not resist being arrested since he chose to die for our sins.) Since the Apostles carried swords to the Garden (Lk 22:36-37), the first Christian knights were the apostles! It is true that in Matthew 26:52 Jesus advises his disciple to get rid of swords because those who “live by the sword shall die by it.” However, Jesus advises his disciples to buy swords (Lk 22:36-37). The ear that was cut off the Temple guard is clear proof that Christ allowed them to be brought there.

"Living by the sword" is not the same as defending with the sword. Peter's act was one of needless violence since Christ wanted to be arrested so his resistance was stopped by Christ (John 1810-11) (23).

Bishops as Soldiers of Christ Do Not Need Fons Honorum

Bishops, as successors to the apostles, may appoint bishops' guards and militant Religious (knights) ourselves just as Christ told his disciples to buy swords. We do not need some worldly man-made notion of "fons honorum" to militarize our Religious.

St. Paul referred to himself as a "soldier of Christ." “Endure suffering along with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. Soldiers don’t get tied up in the affairs of civilian life, for then they cannot please the officer who enlisted them." (II Timothy 2:3-4) (Timothy was the bishop of Ephesus .) (24)

Soldiers of Christ Under the Church in a Different Category

Thus we find support for the fact that worldly or earthly soldiering is not the same as that from Christ. Thus a Christian knight (soldier) under the church is in a different classification from the worldly royal one. Christ's royal priesthood is separate and distinct from the so-called "blood" royalty which is really a fleshy (sperm) one. "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places"(Eph 6:12-13)

Christ told Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (25)

The notion of "fons honorum" does not apply to apostolic churchmen (more accurately bishops) at all. Bishops receive men and women into religious orders. Members of religious orders must be under the jurisdiction of a bishop. They are all subject to canon (church) law either as laity or as a cleric. Religious in holy orders must have faculties (license) from a bishop.
Christ's kingdom did not rise from this world as do physical kingdoms (Dan. 7:3-17). Christ's laws are not worldly; it is a kingdom whose laws are written the hearts of men and of divine origin (Heb. 8:10). The Holy Spirit led the apostles and has and does lead their successors the bishops in councils. Christ's kingdom is not a visible physical kingdom (Matt. 4:8). It is a different category from worldly kingdoms and so are its' soldiers!

Origins of the Friars of the Hospital of St. John in the Church

"The Friars of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem" were not an authorized religious order until the Bishop of Rome said that they were (Pope Paschal II in 1113). (26) The first leader was a Rector (27) and the members were friars. Keep in mind that all of that was about one thousand years after the apostles first were authorized by Christ to get swords.

Final Analysis and Conclusions

Bishops can recognize anyone as a warrior (militant). Thus a knight (warrior) in a religious order is not to be classified as one would categorize a person in a worldly royal organization. They are in an entirely different category.

Bishops by definition are of the lineage of the royal priesthood of Christ and carry that Apostolic Succession. (28) Every bishop is as valid as another; all titles beyond "bishop" are honorary or organizational since the offices or degrees of major orders are deacon, priest and bishop (29). This ranking of honor of bishops was understood as early as the 4th Century. The pope was considered to be honored first among "equals" (30) These beliefs still hold true today for the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. (31)

Some secular nobility "commissions" have made up some ideas about which bishops or clergy can make knights. These same people would tell you that some abbot can make a knight but not all bishops can and other such conjured up rubbish. It is a silly argument to hold that any abbot in the world has more spiritual authority than any bishop. An abbot is not a bishop but a priest. A priest can not rule or govern anything without license (faculties) from a bishop. (32)

Some nobility "authorities" show their ignorance of church matters when they try to say that only certain bishops can create knights. A bishop definitely can ordain a person into major holy orders and bless and receive vows to bring others into minor religious orders (33). If that bishop chooses to appoint them as guards or otherwise arm them or militarize them it is his prerogative as ruler of the diocese.

Religious orders are subject to the rule of a bishop of the Apostolic Succession as evidenced by the 4th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, which decreed that "the monks in every city or place shall be subject to the Bishop." (34)

Certain "nobility authorities" or secular “commissions” have tried to conjure up rules from thin air or build upon the opinion of some other theological invalid fellow regarding religious military orders created and overseen by a bishop of the Apostolic Succession.

Knighthood under a bishop as a religious order is valid because it is of the Apostolic Succession. Soldiers of Christ were first with the apostolic church not earthly royalty.

Additionally, the church can recognize or bless anyone that it pleases. Since any bishop with a valid Apostolic Succession is considered to be a real bishop no matter what church he is in, a blessing from that bishop is a real one. (The Roman Catholic Church holds that even a "break off" and excommunicated bishop still has full power of holy orders!)(35)

Some think that it is because a certain city-state or community is governed by a bishop that this is why he can make knights. No Christian earthly rule existed in the early church. Some would assert some special status to the pope over chivalry or what can be termed a "papal states" and " Vatican city-state" argument. This rings hollow in light of the fact that a lie called the Donation of Constantine started such notions. Charlemagne's grants of cities were based upon his belief in a forgery. (36) (37) (38) (39)

About 800 years before that polygamist named Charlemagne, Saint Paul told a bishop named Timothy to “wage the good warfare” (1 Tim. 1:18) and to “endure hardship as a good soldier of Jesus Christ” (2 Tim. 2:3). Again, Christian soldiers (knights) came first. That apostolic authority as soldiers of Christ has always been with the church governed by the bishops of the Apostolic Succession.

Paul also told Christians to put on the “whole armor of God” (Eph. 6:10–20). The words translated as “whole armor” (Gr. panopli÷a, panoplia) denote the “whole armor” of the heavily armed legions. Since we are not fighting a fleshly battle, our weaponry must not be carnal. This is one of many ways the spiritual was declared to be superior and preferable to the worldly. That does not mean that Christian solders may never pick up physical weapons. Recall Christ's violent cleansing of the Temple . (John 2:13-16)

I have provided the following translations of Luke 19:27 to emphasize what will happen to those who refuse to acknowledge the rule of the kingdom of Christ. (Combine this with Acts 20:28 and you have application to those who would resist the rule of the bishops.) Christ was speaking to his disciples in a parable. Those who would not submit to the rule of the royal priesthood of Christ should consider this:
"But as for these enemies of mine who didn't want me to be their king-bring them here and slaughter them in my presence!'" (New American Standard Bible, 1995) The same verse is translated differently but the meaning is clear: "But bring those enemies of mine who didn't want me to reign over them here, and kill them before me.'" (Young's Literal Translation)

Now, consider that the rule is Christ's kingdom and is preserved in the Apostolic Succession in the Holy Church by the Holy Spirit. If you defy or ignore the rule of the bishops, you may incur the wrath of Almighty God upon your soul! This includes the rule of religious orders. Again, see Acts 20:28. Jesus equipped his followers with swords and note that Peter cut a Temple guard's ear off. Two swords were brought there. Jesus could have said to go totally unarmed but he did not. Jesus wanted to die for our sins so Jesus instructed Peter to put his sword away.

The point is that Christ's soldiers (knights) were commissioned by Christ and they were the apostles. Their successors are the bishops. The authority to commission soldiers of Christ therefore lies foremost, firstly and mainly with the bishops of the Apostolic Succession as "fons spiritu sanctus" --not secular royalty and definately not to be judged by some nobility "commission".

The secular nobility and royalty “commissions” are excessively restrictive because they are afraid of losing their elite control. They are intimidated by apostolic churchmen because deep down they know the truth. It is clear that those of us with the dignity of the apostolic succession have the prerogative of performing this anointing rite. It is clearly a decision of the episcopacy and not secular self appointed authorities; and, I should add, not to be done by those same ones whose lineage is about 1000 years younger than our apostolic lines.

A SOBERANIA

A origem da soberania

Duas possibilidades sobre a origem da soberania

Duas visões sobre as questões primeiro e mais fundamental social, a soberania , participação política moderna . católicos colocá-lo em Deus, isto é, nas leis naturais em conformidade com a vontade e constitutivo da ordem social , cujas leis da herança do poder , a sua masculinidade , sua legitimidade e independência são os primeiros e mais naturais. protestantes e aqueles que seguem suas doutrinas, colocá-la nas pessoas e as leis que são a expressão do seu vontades , e que constituem uma ordem ou melhor, um simulacro de sociedade totalmente arbitrária, sem herança do poder sem legitimidade , sem independência .

O que as pessoas?

As pessoas é uma multidão de indivíduos isolados, independentes uns dos outros em sua moral sendo que no seu ser físico , para que todos tenham uma vontade que ele tem os seus órgãos e, portanto, (as pessoas) é uma ficção por que exclui os indivíduos que a compõem em um ser coletivo , ideal ser racional que se pode ver, ouvir ou tocar, e se você quer saber onde as pessoas , está em toda parte pelas suas pessoas e nenhum lugar é tão pessoas .

É esse ideal e nenhuma realidade individual é que todas as perfeições de todos os graus e todos os poderes, que é creditado com um desejo , um motivo , uma força e ainda assim só pode ter as vontades , quase sempre conflitantes indivíduos , suas razões discordantes, e suas forças, cegas e brutais.

Um exército é também uma reunião de indivíduos , mas não é uma abstração nem uma razão de ser ideal, porque é um corpo e um corpo organizado , que tem a sua cabeça e seus membros, que é ou seja, poder e ministros, e um exército é uma corporação e uma armas limitadas, a imagem mais perfeita da sociedade monárquica. Seu líder é chamado de " Geral ", particularmente nas sociedades cristãs palavra extraordinários e cujo resultado é tomadas em suas crenças; palavra que não tem análogo em qualquer idioma ou antiga, pagã palavra que expressa a unidade do corpo, incluindo o "General" é o representante universal, é todo o exército em um reduzido lo em sua forma mais simples, já que a "geral" fala e age em nome do exército.

Assim, antes de qualquer organização, as pessoas é uma multidão , é um corpo com sua cabeça e seus membros, que não era soberano, não era nada, tornou-se assunto quando ele admitiu um poder , seria reverter multidão e perder a sua própria organização.

Na soberania popular

Analogia entre a sociedade nacional e sociedade política

Mesmo melhor, a soberania popular como entendido pelo nosso moderno política consiste em que muitos soberanias , pois há famílias particulares ou empresas nacionais, todos com poderes especiais, pois há pais de família, todos os soberanos em seu estado pequeno, com as mesmas atribuições e funções semelhantes, que, como ele para liderar uma equipe de funcionários, equipamentos para cuidar, temas , funcionários, propriedade, finanças amigos, vizinhos ou inimigos, em paz com um em guerra ou em litígio com os outros.

A sociedade doméstica ou a família está em perfeita harmonia com a sociedade monárquica , uma vez que têm uma constituição similar.

Família, sociedade natural , comunica à empresa pública de "natural", se assim posso dizer, em vez disso, está constantemente a discordar e contradizem a sociedade popular ou república , e, portanto, as instituições populares que podem sofrer de poder legítimo [autoridade = (nota (VLR)] e revolta contra o " sujeito "perturbar a família

por arruiná-lo por suas leis e máximas a autoridade paterna , na dissolução do vínculo matrimonial não e idéias inspiradoras para filhos da desobediência e da rebelião contra a autoridade de seus pais.

O problema da representação

Como a nação e sua soberania são ficções, tudo é ficção na maneira como ele exerce-lo. Todos os membros masculinos da família, proprietários, agricultores, comerciantes, industriais, acadêmicos, escritores, artistas, artesãos, chamamos a todos ambos ou apenas um número de representantes de todos os outros são chamados a passar sem noviciado e despreparados governo de suas famílias para o público do governo são para como muitos estrangeiros por suas ocupações e hábitos, e é de fato legisladores políticos, administradores públicos, e, apesar de sua militares e juízes do outro, mesmo criminoso, e eles se tornam bem como pela imposição de mãos, os juízes de todas as pessoas, de todos os tributação fortunas, legisladores , sem autoridade , poder sem controle, sem responsabilidade oficiais, agentes sem um mandado de ficção, se do poder em um sistema onde tudo é ficção, exceto impostos, a realidade esmagadora que os governos populares estão mais generoso do que os governos absolutos porque que deixam os contribuintes uma ficção de consentimento.

Censo eleições

No entanto, nós montamos um número sob a única garantia de um cem pequeno e dado a uma nação inteira para a escolha dos legisladores, embora muitas vezes mal soyent adaptado para selecionar aqueles que deveriam fazer leis que eles próprios, e passou 40 anos vemos manobra anual estas assembleias eleitorais, funcionários eleitos, legisladores, administradores, podemos julgar pelo estado de onde viemos a sabedoria das leis que fizeram, e ao imenso número de leis que quantos estão há muito esquecido, quantos mais necessidade de repetir a cada ano, e como poucos os que sobreviveram pode ser justificada aos olhos de razão , de religião e política .

Autonomia política ou heteronomia?

Conseqüência política do ateísmo

A negação da existência de Deus é o ateísmo indivíduo e especulativo, a soberania do povo é a negação da soberania de Deus, o ateu político e social, e podemos acreditar que o ser que é a sabedoria infinita ea ordem essencial, autor e curador da sociedade humana, abandonou os cuidados de seu trabalho para o ignorante, e apaixonada, e ele pode aprovar que os homens fazem as leis, o mais alto cargo da inteligência Ele lhes deu, uma arena onde a ambição , a ganância , a inveja , o espírito de rebelião envolver uma batalha feroz muitas vezes decidido pelo eleitor como incompetente?

A superioridade da concepção cristã da soberania

Mas o seu Deus, diz o ateu, no qual você coloca a soberania , não é como uma abstração, um ideal ser, a criação de sua imaginação, você não pode, mais do que as pessoas vêem ou ouvem ?

Este é o lugar onde triunfo doutrinas católica do cristianismo (e esta é a sua força, seus benefícios, digamos mesmo sua divindade) ( na margem : Os pagãos tiveram uma idéia confusa da verdade como eles estavam fazendo nos absurdos sua mitologia a idéia de seus deuses e personificada nos mais baixos animais e até seres humanos insensíveis).

O cristianismo é a "realização" da idéia especulativa e abstrata da divindade, a personificação, se é que posso denominá-lo, do próprio Deus, que, tendo feito o homem à Sua imagem, fez-se mesmo a imagem do homem a ser conhecido, amado e adorado pelos homens.

18 séculos atrás, que o filho de Deus, o próprio Deus dignou-se assumir a forma humana, nasceu, viveu, sofreu, morreu como um homem, e conversaram muito entre os homens. Em memória deste grande evento e para manter o mundo em um testemunho perpétuo, ele deixou nos altares sua presença real de uma forma mística e sob as aparências sensíveis: ele deixou novamente no arquivamento dos livros sagrados de suas aulas, regra eterna da moralidade e dos nossos deveres, na história de sua vida mortal, o modelo eterno de todas as virtudes, e na constituição da empresa que ele fundou e que ele é o supremo poder, a qualquer tipo de constituição natural da sociedade.

Que Deus fez o homem é o que os cristãos reconhecem o verdadeiro soberano poder da empresa, pessoa humana em geral em sua representação toda a humanidade, é como ele mesmo diz, o rei dos reis , aquele pelo qual reinam os reis e os legisladores fazem leis justo e sábio, por me reges reinante , todo o poder , ele disse, foi dada no céu e na terra , nenhum outro nome que o seu era dada ao homem para ser salvo, e para a sociedade para ser feliz e forte, esta é a pedra angular da estrutura social contra a qual tudo corra será quebrado, e é isso que esqueceu também muitas vezes os líderes das nações cristãs que receberam a força para proteger a religião, e que, embora possam ser observadores de seus preceitos em sua conduta pessoal, não praticá-lo melhor do que nunca quando defendem.

Isto é o que Deus fez o homem, Deus Salvador, representando na sua pessoa toda a humanidade, para esta sociedade e instruindo suas lições e exemplos, é, finalmente, o Deus da empresa é sua Providência negar que a nossa inteligência que, para dar uma aparência de religião como verdade abstrata e admitir a idéia especulativa de um Deus sem aplicação para o governo do universo e da conduta humana; deístas que não vivem o suficiente para tornam-se ateus porque seu deísmo é, mesmo inconscientemente, que o ateísmo disfarçado!

Nota sobre o direito divino

É aqui que o direito divino de poder que declaimers hipócritas ter um bicho-papão para as mentes fracas e ignorantes?

Sem dúvida, o direito divino , como eles pretendem ouvir a designação especial, feita pelo próprio Deus, uma família para governar um povo , cujo nome não encontramos um exemplo para a família hebraico reis a partir do qual nasceu o salvador do mundo, em vez vemos a lei divina em conformidade com as leis sociais leis naturais que Deus escreveu :

na religião cristã, diz Bossuet , não há lugar, nenhuma raça que somos obrigados a manter apenas a deixar perecer a religião ea aliança .

A origem protestante da soberania popular

É fácil ver que a ficção da soberania das pessoas que vieram do protestantismo, a religião em qualquer ficção que não tem nenhum altar, nenhum sacrifício, nenhum sensível e não tem nada, mas palavras.

Assim que ele havia colocado o poder religioso na igreja , ele foi levado para colocar o poder político na multidão de súditos , e tendo assim produzido em variações infinitas de sua doutrina de crenças anarquia, ele poderia, em sua anarquia qu'enfanter política de vontades.

Vamos aqui falar sobre a soberania dos povos de o intérprete mais profunda e eloquente de religião e política cristã católica, Bossuet, que tratou desses materiais, especialmente na Quinta aviso para os protestantes .

Mas, mesmo sem examinar as conseqüências do sistema, ir à fonte e tomar o lugar do ministro Jurieu política por mais especioso.

Ele imaginou que as pessoas é, naturalmente, soberano, ou para falar com ele, ele tem, naturalmente, a soberania , uma vez que dá a quem lhe aprouver.

Mas isso está vagando no princípio e não ouvir as palavras, porque, vendo os homens como eles são, naturalmente, e principalmente do governo estabelecido, encontramos apenas a anarquia , ou seja, em todos os homens um selvagem e indomável liberdade, onde todos podem aspirar e desafiar tudo ao mesmo tempo, onde todo mundo está sob custódia e, portanto, em contínua guerra contra todos, onde a razão não pode fazer nada, porque chama a todos , porque a paixão que o leva, onde a lei da natureza permanece impotente como a razão não tem nenhuma; onde consequentemente não há nem propriedade nem campo , nem bom , nem a certeza, aliás, também não direito , se n ' é o mais forte, mas ninguém sabe quem é, como cada um pode tornar-se de acordo com as paixões que irá repelir todas as pessoas mais ou menos;se a raça humana jamais foi inteiramente nesse estado, quer que as pessoas lá foram e em que áreas ou como e por quanto saiu, ele deve decidir contar até o infinito ...

não pode ter pessoas neste estado, pode muito bem ter famílias mal geridos e mal seguro, pode muito bem ser uma banda, uma massa de pessoas, uma multidão confusa, mas não pode haver pessoas , porque um povo algo pressupõe que reúne alguns de condução e alguma lei estabeleceu estabelecido que só acontece para aqueles que já começaram a sair desta condição infeliz, isto é, de anarquia.

 The origin of sovereignty
Two possibilities on the origin of sovereignty


Two views on the issues first and most fundamental social, sovereignty, modern political participation. Catholics put it in God, that is, the natural laws in accordance with the will and constitutive of social order, whose laws of inheritance of power, their masculinity, their legitimacy and independence are the first and most natural. Protestants and those who follow their doctrines, put it in people and the laws are the expression of their wills, and which constitute an order or better, a simulacrum of society entirely arbitrary, without inheritance of power without legitimacy, without independence.
What people?
People are a multitude of individuals, independent of each other in their moral being that in his physical being, so that everyone has a will that he has his organs, and therefore (people) is a fiction that excludes individuals who form a collective being, ideally rational being who can see, hear or touch, and if you want to know where people are everywhere for its people and is nowhere as people.
It is this ideal and no individual reality is that all the perfections of all grades and all powers, who is credited with a desire, a reason, and still a force can only have the will, often conflicting individuals, their reasons for disagreeing , and his forces, blind and brutal.
An army is also a collection of individuals, but is not an abstraction nor a reason to be ideal because it is a body and an organized body, which has its head and its members, which is namely power and ministers, and a Army is a corporation and a limited weapons, the most perfect image of monarchical society. Their leader is called "General", particularly in Christian societies extraordinary and whose word is taken as a result of their beliefs; word that has no analogue in any language or ancient pagan word that expresses the unity of the body, including the "General" is universal representative, the whole army is in a reduced it in its simplest form, since the "general" speaks and acts on behalf of the army.


Thus, before any organization, people is a crowd, is a body with its head and its members, it was not sovereign, it was nothing, became an issue when he admitted power, would revert crowd and lose his own organization.


On popular sovereignty


Analogy between the national society and political society
Even better, popular sovereignty as understood by our modern politics is that many sovereignties as there are families or private firms, all with special powers, as there are parents, every sovereign in his small state, with the same powers and similar functions, who, like him to lead a team of employees, equipment care, issues, employees, property, finance, friends, neighbors or enemies, in peace with a war or in a dispute with the other.




The domestic society or family is in perfect harmony with the monarchic society, since they have a constitution similar.
Family, a natural society, communicates to the public company of "natural", if I may say so, instead, is constantly disagree and contradict popular society or republic, and therefore popular institutions might suffer from legitimate power [authority = (note (VLR)] and revolt against the "subject" to disturb the family
to ruin it by its laws and maxims paternal authority, the dissolution of the marriage bond and not inspiring ideas for children of disobedience and rebellion against the authority of their parents.


The problem of the representation


As a nation and its sovereignty are fictions, everything is fiction in the way he plays it. All male family members, owners, farmers, traders, industrialists, academics, writers, artists, artisans, both call on all or just a number of representatives from all the others are called to do without novitiate and unprepared government of their families to the public to the government are as many foreigners for their occupations and habits, and it is indeed policy makers, public administrators, and, despite its military and the other judges, even criminal, and they become and the imposition of hands, judges of all people, of all wealth tax, legislators, without authority, power without control, without liability officers, agents without a warrant of fiction, if the power in a system where everything is fiction, except taxes, the crushing reality that popular governments are more generous than the absolute governments because taxpayers who fail a fiction of consent.


Census elections


However, we have assembled a number under the sole guarantee of a hundred small and given to an entire nation for the choice of legislators, though often ill-suited soyent to select those who should make laws that they themselves, and spent 40 years we maneuver Annual election of these assemblies, elected officials, legislators, administrators, can judge the state of where we came from the wisdom of the laws they made, and the immense number of laws that have long forgotten how many, how many more need to repeat every year, and how few that survived can be justified in the eyes of reason, religion and politics.


Political autonomy or heteronomy?


Political consequence of atheism
The denial of God's existence is speculative atheism individual and the sovereignty of the people is the denial of the sovereignty of God, the atheist political and social, and we believe that the being who is infinite wisdom and essential order, author and curator of human society, abandoned the care of his work for the ignorant, and passionate, and he can pass that men make the laws, the highest office of the intelligence He gave them an arena in which ambition, greed, envy, spirit of rebellion involved a fierce battle often decided by the voters as incompetent?


The superiority of the Christian conception of sovereignty


But your God, says the atheist, in which you put the sovereignty, not as an abstraction, an ideal being, the creation of your imagination, you can not more people see or hear?
This is where Catholic doctrines triumph of Christianity (and this is its strength, its benefits, say even his divinity) (margin: The pagans had a confused idea of ​​truth as they were doing in their mythology the absurd idea of ​​their gods and personified in the lower animals and even humans insensitive).
Christianity is the "realization" of the speculative and abstract idea of ​​the deity, the personification, if I may call it, of God himself, who, having made man in His image, it was the same man's image to be known, loved and adored by men.
18 centuries ago, the son of God, God himself deigned to take human form, was born, lived, suffered, died as a man, and talked much among men. In memory of this great event and to keep the world in a perpetual testimony, he left his real presence on the altars of a mystical way and under the sensible appearances: he left again in the filing of the sacred books of his lectures, morality and eternal rule of our duties in the history of his mortal life, the eternal model of all virtues, and the constitution of the company he founded and he is the supreme power, any kind of natural constitution of society.
God made man is what Christians recognize the true sovereign power of the company, individual in general on their behalf all mankind, is as he says, the king of kings, that by which kings reign and legislators are just and wise laws, for me reges ruling, all power, he said, was given in heaven and on earth, no other name that was given to his men to be saved, and to society to be happy and strong, this is the cornerstone of the social structure against which everything runs will be broken, and this is also often forgotten that the leaders of the Christian nations who received the strength to protect the religion, and that, although observers of its precepts in their conduct personal, not practice it better than ever when defending.
This is what God made man, God and Saviour, representing in his person all mankind, for society and instructing their lessons and examples, it is ultimately the God of his Providence company is denying that our intelligence, to give appearance of religion as an abstract truth and admit the idea of ​​a God without a speculative application to the government of the universe and of human conduct; deists who do not live long enough to become atheists because their Deism is, even unconsciously, that atheism in disguise !


Note on the divine right


It is here that the divine right of power declaimers hypocrites have a bogeyman to the weak minded and ignorant?
Without doubt, the divine right, as they claim to hear the special designation, made by God himself, a family to govern a people whose name does not find an example for the family of the Hebrew kings from whom was born the Savior of the world, rather we see the divine law in accordance with social laws natural laws that God wrote:
in the Christian religion, says Bossuet, no place, no race we are obliged to keep only to let religion destroy the alliance.
The Protestant origin of popular sovereignty
It is easy to see that the fiction of the sovereignty of the people who came from Protestantism, the religion of any fiction that has no altar, no sacrifice, no sensitive and has nothing but words.
Once he had put the religious power in the church, he was taken to place political power in the multitude of subjects, and having thus produced endless variations of his doctrine of beliefs anarchy, he could in his political anarchy qu'enfanter of wills .
Come here to talk about the sovereignty of the people of the most profound and eloquent interpreter of religion and politics Christian Catholic, Bossuet, who handled these materials, especially on Thursday warning to the Protestants.
But even without considering the consequences of the system, go to the source and take the place of the minister Jurieu policy for more specious.
He imagined people is, of course, sovereign, or to speak with him, he naturally has the sovereignty, since it gives to whom he pleases.
But this is wandering at the beginning and not hear the words, because, seeing the men as they are, of course, and especially the established government, we found only anarchy, ie, in all men a wild and untamed freedom, where everyone can aspire and challenge all at the same time, where everyone is in custody and, therefore, continuous war against all, where reason can not do anything because all the calls, because the passion that takes you where the law of nature remains helpless as the reason does not have any, and where consequently there is neither owned nor field, nor good, nor certainty, nor, indeed no right, if n 'is the strongest, but nobody knows who he is, how each one can become in accordance with the passions that will repel all persons more or less, if the human race has never been entirely in this state or that people there were and in what areas or how and how much did he decide to count to infinity ...
can not have people in this state, may well have families and badly mismanaged insurance may well be a band, a mass of people, a confused crowd, but there can be people, because a people assumes that something gathers some driving and established a law established that only happens to those who have already started to get out of this unfortunate condition, ie, anarchy.

History of Nobility

The Nature of Nobility

The French concept of nobility was very different from the English one. Whereas, in England, only a peerage bestows nobility on the holder, in France, nobility was a quality, a legal characteristic of the individual, which was held or acquired in specified ways, and which conferred specified rights and privileges. The manners of acquiring nobility being specific, French nobility isn't the same as the English gentry either, which has no legal definition or status.Nobility was usually a hereditary characteristic, but some forms of nobility could not be transmitted. When it was hereditary, nobility usually came from the father, but sometimes a higher percentage of noble blood might be required (counted in number of "quartiers") or that the family be noble for a certain number of generations. A nobleman marrying a commoner did not lose his nobility, but a noblewoman who married a commoner lost it, as long as she was married to the commoner.
Nobility was an important legal concept, in particular because of the privileges attached to it. Taxes were originally levied to help the sovereign in times of war; and since nobles were expected to provide help in kind, by fighting for their sovereign, they were usually exempted from taxes. This privilege lost its rationale after the end of feudalism and nobility had nothing to do with military activity, but it survived for the older forms of taxation until 1789 (more recent taxes, levied in the 17th and 18th centuries, allowed for weaker or no exemption for nobles).
A number of offices and positions in civil and military administrations were reserved for nobles, notably all commissions as officers in the army. This privilege created a significant obstacle to social mobility and to the emergence of new talents in the French state. It remained very real until 1789.

Acquisition of Nobility

But one could also acquire nobility, and that was a numerically significant mode since the 16th c.There were three main ways one could be noble:

1. by birth: usually, but not always, from the father, and the mother could be a commoner. Some regions in Eastern France allowed for transmission of nobility by the mother, notable Champagne at least until the 16th century, and Bar until 1789 (subject to the prince's approval), but otherwise an edict of 1370 restricted transmission to the father. Bastards of nobles became noble when legitimated by letters of the sovereign, until 1600 when a separate act of ennoblement was required (royal bastards were always noble, even without legitimation).
2. by office: depending on the office, the holder of the office became noble eirher immediately or after a number of years, nobility was personal or hereditary, hereditary for 2, 3 or more generations, etc. There were about 4000 offices conferring nobility of some kind in the 18th century. Nobility thus attained was called "noblesse de robe" (for judicial offices; "noblesse de cloche" for municipal offices). Offices were usually bought, and oftentimes they were sold once ennoblement had occurred. The types of offices were varied:
• municipal offices (in sixteen French towns: Angers, Angoulême, Arras, Bourges, Cognac, Issoudun, La Rochelle, Le Mans, Lyon, Nantes, Niort, Paris, Poitiers, Saint-Jean d'Angély, Toulouse, Tours). The offices were usually those of aldermen or members of the city council, but after 1667 the ennobling privilege was restricted to the office of mayor, except for Lyon (comtes de Lyon) and Toulouse (capitouls). The registered burghers of Perpignan were considered noble, an Aragonese privilege confirmed after French annexion.
• judicial offices: members of the courts or Parlements were ennobled after 20 years or death in office for two consecutive generations (some courts, such as Paris, ennobled "in the first degree", that is, at the first generation); a variety of other judicial offices carried similar privilege. These offices were bought and sold freely.
• fiscal offices: members of the tax courts and state auditors, senior tax collectors and the like; also bought and sold.
• administrative offices: various positions in the king's household, and the several hundred offices of secrétaires du Roi, which ennobled in the first degree, and were bought and sold.
• military commissions: in the Middle ages, the owner of a noble fief could be ennobled if he wasn't so, but after 1275 a condition that three consecutive generations hold the fief ("tierce foi") was added, and the privilege was abolished in 1579. The Edict of November 1750, when some military commissions were opened to non-nobles, it was decided that officers reaching the rank of general would automatically receive hereditary nobility. Officers of lesser rank who received the Order of Saint-Louis and fulfilled certain requirements were exempt from the taille (a tax on non-nobles); the third generation meeting the requirements received hereditary nobility.
3. by "letters": that is, by royal grant.  The king could always ennoble anyone he wished. The earliest examples date from the last third of the 13th century. In times of financial distress, the king sold such letters of nobility, sending them blank to his provincial administrators.

Note that one could lose nobility, by failing at one's feudal duties ("déchéance") or practising forbidden occupations ("dérogeance"): commerce, manual crafts were cause to lose nobility. Medicine, glass-blowing, exploitation of mines, maritime commerce, and wholesale commerce were exempted. Tilling one's land was acceptable, but farming someone else's (except the King's) was not.A nobleman son and grandson of nobles was called a noble de race or gentilhomme(although the term of gentilhomme is often used for any noble by birth). If all 4 of his grandparents were noble he was a gentilhomme des 4 lignes (nobility of all lines, and not just the paternal line, was usually of little importance in France, though a prestigious lineage in female line could be a source of pride; the emphasis on nobility in all lines may be due to the particular requirements for admission into the Order of Malta from the 16th century). If his pedigree went further and no commoners could be found in the male lign, he was deemed a gentilhomme de nom et d'armes. These definitions vary from author to author, and are not very important. In general, the status depends primarily on the length of the pedigree, and everyone agrees that a gentilhomme is a born noble: not even the king can make a man into a gentilhomme. Adoption did not transmit nobility.