I had a very interesting exchange with a friend regarding Roman Law, and an equally insightful question by a reader that was posted in all humility. I had already thought of writing on this, since it has become absolutely clear that the average person, especially if English-speaking, has got not only no clue, but also no direct experience of the intrinsic superiority of Roman Law when compared to any other legal system found on Earth; ever.
It sounds like a fantastic boast doesn’t it? Well it is not, and hopeless though the attempt is when dealing with people who are only swayed by their emotions, and not the objective facts, I hop to at least help those who can reason, to see something that they probably have been unaware of, and which, in fairness, has been kept from them by the same forces that would love to have you believe a man can get pregnant.
Allow me to share the conversation I had, as I hope you find it a good starting point to begin to see the issue. I’m the writing in the green bubbles.
*
Side note, for those of you that think I am a horrible racist of some kind, please note it extends to my own fellow supposed countrymen, the wops. In reality, of course, I am not Italian at all, being Venetian, and we Venetians are not wops. Of course. The correct slur for us is Dagos. Don’t say I don’t teach you guys something cool every day.
As I have been telling you all since at least 2011 officially, which is when my book on the Russian Martial System I trained and taught for several years came out, the baseline bedrock principle for any man is simply what the oracle at Delphi said millennia ago already: Man – Know Thyself.
Which I modified slightly to: Know (for) Yourself.
Meaning, both know yourself and also find things out for yourself. Don’t take my word for anything, go ahead and check. And check other stuff you took for granted since you were born. My suggestion is start looking into the Catholic Church’s REAL beliefs prior to 1958 and then compare them to Vatican II.
Then if you want to flex your veracity radar, look into the origins of WWI and even more so WWII. And a LOT of the “accepted truth” of what actually happened in that war and who did what to whom.
But for now let me continue sharing the conversation I had with my friend.
There was one more message from me here where I stated that over time, Protestantism shifted from a few (serious) doctrinal errors, all the way to the demonic nonsense it is today, with transgender “Bishops”, 40,000 denominations, and Atheist Lesbians pretending to be Priests, and more abominations and blasphemies of Christianity than you can shake a stick at.
Now, without the background I have with my friend, you might be more inclined to think I am just some zealot shouting at clouds that Catholicism is the best and only true Christianity because I am some unhinged and brainwashed Catholic.
Well… those of you who know me and my story would be aware that I had rejected Catholicism from about age 7 to age 42 entirely and it was only a Road to Damascus moment that made me aware God was real and God was Love, but NOT that God was necessarily best seen through the lens of Catholicism. What my metaphorical fall from the horse did was make me aware that God was definitely best described by the Christian tradition, but which one of those it was took a little longer. I shifted from Deism quickly to general Christianity, discarding Protestantism because it is simply utterly nonsensical and illogical from top to bottom and have no credibility at all to anyone who is not brainwashed into it from birth or mentally handicapped. Literally children can figure it out that Protestantism is nonsense, so that was discarded in a matter of hours. Originally I thought Easter “Orthodoxy” might be the closest to the truth. It didn’t seem as filled with pedophiles and weak “men” as “Catholicism” even if the theology of it was weak and a lot of things that could be reasoned out were swept under the carpet of “It’s a Mystery”.
In fact, only Catholicism seemed to provide the most logical, sensible and accurate facts, though there were obvious flaws. And I could not reconcile these until I read the Code of Canon Law of 1917 and came across Canon 188 part 4. At that point I realised that what most people think is the Catholic Church is no such thing. It is an impostor Church that has usurped the real one almost entirely and deprived us of a valid Pope since 1958. Realising I could not be the only one to have figured this out from first principles, I started to look online for anything related to Canon 188 part 4. And it was then I discovered Sedevacantism.
Since then I studied obsessively (as I tend to do when I find something worthwhile) and publish two books on the topic of Catholicism Vs. Everything else.
BELIEVE! REAL CHRISTIANITY TAKING CHRISTENDOM BACK: A Reply to the Pederast Infested Vatican, the Churchians of All Denominations and a Manual for Atheists, Agnostics and Would-be Pagans , is a short book that only takes a couple of hours to read, is written in a style unlike any theology book you have ever read (as you may have guessed from the title) and has helped a LOT of people into returning to proper Catholicism. From Atheist to Agnostics and Protestants and Novus Ordo “Catholics”, entire families have now started attending Churches that are actually Catholic. Which you can find here: luxvera.org
RECLAIMING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: The True History of Vatican II and the Visible Remnant of the Real Catholic Church now that the Vatican is a Pederast Infested Hive of Impostors, on the other hand is some 530 pages of detailed information that explains exactly why the Novus Ordo “Church” is really a Satanic sect pretending to be Catholic, takes you through in detail, all of the heresies of Vatican II and how it came about, and answers literally every single objection that has ever been raised about Sedevacantism, so that the sophists and liars that keep talking such nonsense in the hope of confusing people have nothing left that has not been demonstrated to be a false issue.
Despite this, I keep encountering genuine people, intelligent people, that still seem to be stumped by some of the lies that keep getting promulgated by the sophists, the liars and the enemies of truth.
It is only recently that I realise that the root of this is not, as I had assumed just due to stupidity (though, let’s never forget Professor Cipolla, who in my view should be sanctified!). It was mostly due to people’s learned helplessness when it comes to doing correct logic in the context of human affairs.
And I realise now a couple of things:
- It is the rare person raised in Anglo-Zeitgeist that has any experience in performing good logic in relation to human beings and their behaviours. The emphasis is on systems. More specifically, the mechanising systems of the Industrial Revolution. The Anglos are better at measuring the efficiency of human beings as if they were cogs in a machine. Production statistics, efficiency of work. Profit margins. The logic of commerce and systems to facilitate and maximise that commerce are all “superior” to the average abilities in those fields you find in countries that were nominally Catholic (Italy, Spain, Portugal, most of South America). The “logic” of the Anglos is depersonalised and not good at all at correctly evaluating human affairs beyond those related to the material world of commerce, profit and mechanising of human beings.
- The ignorance of the origins of Roman Law and its evolution is pervasive. Even most supposed Catholics are unaware of it, however, Catholics (even the flawed ones that are nominally Novus Ordo) have the momentum of Catholicism for a couple of millennia behind them that has permeated their culture and thus they have instinctively understood some elements of logic as it applies to human being and their interactions with each other in a way that remains generally more human-centric, that is, more favourably in service of human beings instead of the profit motive, or the work efficiency motive, or the materialistic motives.
- The further lack of knowledge whatsoever of the terrible degradation of Roman Catholic Law into the abomination that is Anglo-Saxon Law, with its obsession on presents modifying the law in the future, is so deep that the average Anglo literally cannot understand what is being said when I point out that Roman Law is based on Principle but that the details of each case are treated uniquely for each case, and the outcomes can be very different even if superficially the cases may look very similar to an external observer. The classic example being that in that abomination of “law” that is the American legal system, people often innocent of a crime will still plead guilty to a lesser charge in order to avoid a trial that has prescribe sentences if found guilty of the charge. Roman Law does not work that way. The situation is investigated and the punishment is doled out depending on the finds of that investigation. Not all robberies are equal, not all murders are either.
- The Death penalty is dogmatic under Catholicism. Certain crimes absolutely deserve capital punishment, and despite the fact that the secular and freemasonic powers of the current world order have mostly done away with this almost all over the world, the fact remains that logically and humanely, it is simply a matter of justice and human dignity that demands the death penalty must remain a law under certain circumstances.
Aside the specifics of the penal or civil code, allow me then to now show you a pertinent question from a very humble reader:
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.
[focus on learning the basic principles of logic instead]
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.
[Given the KJV is the Freemason Bible, that’s a good thing]
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?
[Yes. Do. It’s interesting. And when you see how various Codes interact with each other it will become clearer too]
Do I memorize it?
[If you can do that you’re some freak of nature, and I don’t think it’s necessary, but good luck.]
Is the purpose of the book to help us understand Vatican I (pre-Vatican II) Church administration?
[No. The purpose of it is to have ALL the rules and regulations of Catholicism in ONE book, instead of scattered all over various Papal Encyclicals, pronouncements, reasoning of the patristic fathers of the Church or its Saints and Doctors, and so on. Using this code, any situation that may present itself is covered either in positive definition or in the negative absence of it. So for example, there is no maximum time that an interregnum can last, because there is no such limit specified in the Code anywhere. Of course, reading the Code gives you an insight into how Catholicism works, what its rules are, and if you read up on the references too, this becomes even clearer. In this way you will indeed learn the various processes of the rules required foe the running of the Church, but such rules are not divine law and can change, while other rules are rooted in divine law and will never change. For example you can’ become a Catholic by being forced to convert.]
How do the contents of the book affect the lives of ordinary Sedevacantist Catholics?
[They are the rules both the clergy and laypeople, each in their own capacity and within their constraints as either clergy or layman, should live by.]
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? [Well, if you are searching for truth, genuinely and honestly, eventually you will find it. Which means eventually you will end up becoming a Sedevacantist Catholic.]
And let me also try to answer it here in a more general sense too.
Learning about Roman Law is probably best done by learning about the Roman codex that was added to and grew over time and learning about the Roman Empire. While this is definitely Roman Law, it was yet quite far from anything I would define as “the best system on Earth”. While Rome remained pagan, the laws they had could be very brutal and even unfair. There was also different rules for Roman Citizens and foreigners. This is why St. Paul, for example, who was a Roman citizen, was decapitated when he was martyred, while St. Peter was crucified (upside down by his own request). Once you are familiar with he concept of how the Romans came to have these set of laws, you need to then immerse yourself in how Catholicism went from 11 scared men to essentially conquering the Roman Empire. Once Catholicism entered the fray, Roman Law changed. The rules that the Romans had did begin on principle and then went to detail, but Catholicism added the humanity, grace, mercy, wisdom, truth and justice that are the foundation of Catholicism to the rules.
Each human being became intrinsically of equal value, regardless of citizenship or ethnicity or much of anything else. It can clearly be seen, for example, in the Papal Encyclical Cum Ex Apostolato Officio, that a heretic was to be shunned and treated as such regardless of if he were the Pope himself (which would no longer be a Pope once he became a heretic, of course), and Emperor, or the lowest janitor.
God does not differentiate on your crime or punishment based on your social status, and neither does the Church or Catholic infused Roman Law.
When I say “Roman Law” I really mean Catholic Roman Law, because I am referring to Roman Law under Catholicism.
In this respect then Catholic Roman Law is what I define as the absolute best system for governing human beings as well as giving them a set of rules and guidelines that is without question the most comprehensively just system of laws and social guidelines for dealing with the flawed humans we are that humanity has ever come up with. There simply is not anything that even comes close in any other system that has ever been tried by human beings on Earth.
Catholic Roman Law is without question the most just system of rules ever devised, precisely because it is ultimately founded on the Divine principles of Catholic dogma and hence as close as humans can get to God’s will.
Throughout the Bible, you see God’s judgements are not like Anglo-Saxon Laws. While there are absolutes (for example, touching the ark of the covenant results in instadeath) the judgement and punishment for apparently similar crimes is unique to each situation. David had a good man, Uriah, be placed in such a position that he would be killed in battle, which happened, just so he could take the man’s wife, Bathsheba. A traitorous, deceitful, murdering, sneaky bastard of a thing to do, without question. [Samuel 2:11].
Yet, David is also described as a man who was after God’s own heart [Acts 13:22].
And he clearly was not punished as would perhaps have been another man who had behaved as David did with Bathsheba. The point her sis not to get lost in the weeds of theological interpretation of these passages in the Old Testament, but rather, to understand that each situation is unique when dealing with human beings and as such the correct, logical, fair and just way to deal with them MUST BE, to begin with principles, but to study each case and judge each situation on its merits.
Anglo-laws still pay SOME lip-service to this under the guise of extenuating circumstances, but it is a far cry from the actual process of using logic and reason based in Divine order to come to the correct justice for people.
Of course, no system is free from possible corruption, abuse or error, given all human beings are flawed, but in principle at least, Roman Law is the best we have.
Take the example of two murderers. One gets condemned to death, the other gets a few months in prison, or perhaps just an admonition. How can this be?
Let’s say one murderer beats an old man to death in order to steal his pension, while the other murderer beats to death an old man who had raped his toddler son.
The method of the murder is the same. And let’s say also the level of premeditation is the same. Both men lay in wait for their victim so as to perpetuate the murder.
What are they actually guilty of? Is it the same in both instances? An Anglo reader, even if possessed of an instinctive sense of justice will say the second man had “extenuating circumstances” but is unlikely to be able to justify a lesser punishment for the father of the toddler on sound logical and legal grounds. It’ mostly just a “feeling”, right?
A Catholic that has any basic knowledge of Roman Law, on the other hand will be able to instantly see the issue.
Man number one perpetrated a homicide that was absolutely premeditated, and was done out of pure malice. Even if one might say you can’t be CERTAIN of the intent to murder since whether he MEANT to kill the old man or not, his violent actions resulted in the death of the man, the point is immaterial. Once you cross the line of breaking the law and then something goes horribly wrong, like you kill a guy by “accident” when you only meant to injure or cripple him, it really doesn’t matter in an instance like this, because the initial act was premeditated and unlawful. You have taken a life and capital punishment absolutely applies.
Now let’s look at man number two, what is he actually guilty of? Is it murder? Actually, no. The old man that raped his toddler son would in any case have been put to death. That is the appropriate punishment for such an act. So the father is not really guilty of murder, since the old man really signed his own death warrant by his actions. However, the father intentionally and premeditatedly, denied the due process of law by taking the law in his own hands. He is guilty of a crime that can be labelled in different ways but we could call it “Perverting the course of justice.” It would be a bad thing in general for people to get the idea they can simply mete out the punishment that is due or that would be due under a proper process of law. Primarily because people are pretty dumb and emotional creatures and have little capacity to be objective and fair when they are hurt deeply.
So the father of the boy does need to be punished if for no other reason so that the other citizens realise that becoming a vigilante is generally a bad idea for society in general. The fiction here is that this assumes that any system of law would actually deliver perfect justice in each case. Which is probably why the father of the boy took this action. but that in itself is not reason enough to excuse his actions.
So now it depends on the evidence that the old man definitely would have been put to death for his crime. But let’s say that there is video of the old man’s crime as well as reliable witnesses and this is now beyond any doubt.
Next we need to look at how the father killed the guy. was it one punch to the head and the old man fell and died? Or did the father kidnap the old man, put him in a cellar and beat him to death over three days using a rubber hose as a whip?
If it was the first, he might get away with a caution if I was judge. Because fully cognisant that the law can be imperfect, but given the overwhelming evidence of the crime the old man did, I’d understand the father’s wish to ensure that the right punishment was meted out. And since we can’t be CERTAIN he meant to kill the old man, that one punch and done could be ruled an accident. And the “crime” of vigilantism, understood as pretty negligible in the scheme of things. And a light or even absent sentence sends a message to the wider community too. Yeah the law is imperfect sometimes…. and we’re likely to make sure it’s MORE imperfect when you rape little kids.
On the other hand, if he’d kept the old man in a cellar for three days, this complicates things. The “crime” of taking the law into his own hands and thus shall we say “besmirching” the law, is more grievous. So he must be punished for that. And probably have some kind of psychiatric evaluation too. Because doing that kind of thing is not really normal for MOST people. Though it is perfectly normal for a few types of people. So I wold not want to label such a man as mentally unhealthy, but I would prescribe some kind of therapy that would have zero bearing on his sentence and not be able to be used in the future to add to any further crimes he may commit under the guise that he is “unbalanced”. In short, it would be mandated purely for his own benefit and be sealed sessions the contents of which would remain only between him and the therapist (or priest, which I would consider an adequate alternative if the man was Catholic). Aside that, I would also mandate some community service for say six months, in a capacity that would bring him into contact with some physical work as well as helping a sector of the population that needs it.
The reasoning would be that he influenced society negatively by his extreme for of vigilantism, but no one would be made better by him rotting in jail for six months. Instead with mandated therapy he might get some help or at least get a few thoughts off his chest in safety, and his community service would counter-balance any negative effects on society he caused, by providing a net positive.
By describing this hypothetical in some detail, I hope to have shown that the concept is based on reason and logic, not emotions or vague legalistic loopholes that are really just flawed in terms of justice and logic.
In brief then remember, when it comes to human beings (and not just in relation to crime and punishment) reason, logic and the application of it on the basis of principle being imperative, but details and circumstances leading to the conclusions that are available under that overarching principle is the way to be.
If you know yourself, are honest, and can do logic, then Roman Catholic Law will come naturally to you. If any one of those ingredients is shaky, then it will not.
I truly hope this post helps at least a few of you to get the idea.
This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here
