I thought registered charities such as churches could only be tax exempt if they weren't politically involved? What is prompting the 400 to abandon charitable status for the sake of political ideology?
Thanks David, interesting. Who minds a bit if the 'ToW 400' wants to weigh in on something yet to be crystalised, as long as they acknowledge they have no more moral authority than you or me. Big picture to me is one giant virtue-signal on their part, an instance of ostentatious virtue, elitism, while resisting the democratic idea that this thing should be kicked around all over the show, MUST be kicked around. Pfft to them.
Appreciate very much your clear logical analysis and in-depth research.
For me, I find both ACT's proposed bill (including both the first release and the 9 September version) as well as the Church 400 letter to be problematic.
With the Church 400 letter: they start with a quote from Psalm 15, which suggests that people should keep their oaths. They then go on to urge the PM and National Party to break their Coalition agreement with the ACT party by not supporting ACT's bill at its first reading. Well, you can't have your moralistic cake and eat it too!
And with ACT's proposed text: let's consider only the first stated principle. It's both out of context and is essentially superfluous, and therefore mischievous. The Sovereign Authority of Queen Victoria and Her Majesty's Governmental authority was at first extended to New Zealand by a Letters Patent issued 15 June 1839, which extended the Colony of New South Wales to include all of New Zealand and appointed Governor George Gipps as Governor of New Zealand (refer McDowell, Morag; Webb, Duncan (2002). The New Zealand Legal System (3rd ed.). LexisNexis Butterworths.; and McLean, Gavin (2006). The Governors: New Zealand's Governors and Governors-General. Dunedin: Otago University Press).
Following that there were: Governor Hobson's proclamations of British authority over New Zealand in 21 May 1840; the issue of a Royal Charter establishing New Zealand as a Colony separate from NSW 16 November 1840; and the New Zealand Constitution Acts of 1846 and 1852. The last of which was in force until the Constitution Act 1986. These all quite adequately and lawfully establish the Royal Authority of the Monarch in Right of New Zealand, presently His Majesty King Charles III.
The problem with this arises when ACT Party wants us all to vote in a referendum as to whether or not the NZ Government has any authority in the country. Well, it's already lawfully established anyway, then why should we vote on that question? And who is it that has the authority to put that question to the people at all? If we were to bring in to question the lawfulness of His Majesty's New Zealand Government, this would also bring into question the veracity of all the historical testimonies to which I refer above, the oaths of allegiance made by every current MP, the appointment of the Governor-General, as well as the 6 February 1840 Treaty itself! We would then be entering the realm of meaningless nihilism....
Consequently, I would affirm the stance taken by PM Luxon, that he and his party don't wish to support ACT's bill, but have only agreed to allow it to go to a First Reading and Select Committee in order to secure ACT's support to form a coalition government.
I agree with your analysis but the Waitangi Tribunal, in a revisionist rewriting of history in 2014, said that Maori did not cede sovereignty. I think that principle 1 in the draft Bill is designed to put that beyond a shadow of doubt.
I'm wondering how we could read the treaty as not being an acceptance of Queen Victoria's sovereign authority (or, at the least, suzerainty?), when clause 3 grants the rights and privileges of British subjects. Of course, no one could have the rights and duties of a subject, unless one were to first recognise the authority of the Sovereign......
The temporal authority of the Popes and the Church of Christ over the nations is necessary for the preservation of Christendom and the good of the world.
Our present world is in the terrible situation it is because that temporal authority has been rejected wholesale since the Protestant revolt, the spirit of which has spread even within the physical structures of the Catholic Church leaving her without a true Pope since 1958, with public heretics pretending to be her living rule of faith.
All around us we see the mystery of iniquity working with state sponsored genital mutilation being the latest consequence of the rejection of the spiritual authority of the Church. Things will continue to get worse in society until the temporal authority of the spiritual authority is restored.
I assume the Protestant revolt you refer to is the one started in 1517 with Luther's challenge and proceeded thereafter. The position that you advance is precisely what the Enlightenment opposed - the temporal authority of the Church. To achieve your desired outcome would require a roll back of the tsunami of history.
“The temporal authority of the Popes and the Church of Christ over the nations is necessary for the preservation of Christendom and the good of the world.” In my opinion that is a statement of breathtaking arrogance. Popes et al are no more than a man-made construct. A power grab from one quarter. God (or the concept of a Supreme Being) was besmirched by that.
The Papacy was instituted by Christ himself. Upon this Rock (Peter) I shall build my Church. There is no other. God himself will restore this when the time is right. The enlightenment is nothing but a return to the darkness of paganism. The state of the world we live in is a testament to the vacancy of that Holy See since 1958.
Thanks for your comment John. I disagree with what you say about the Enlightenment, the ideals of which now allow us the free exchange of ideas which we now enjoy and in which we participate on this platform.
I respectfully disagree. The free exchange of ideas in fields that are outside faith and morals was never a problem for Christian societies. However the greater supernatural good was rightly placed above all other considerations when it came to faith and morals.
A free exchange of ideas in all areas leads to men losing a grasp on even natural reality as we are now witnessing with transgenderism.
Because contrary to what men might believe we are not just advanced apes (who by the way all have 24 pairs of chromosomes while humans have 23) but beings with reason and immortal souls. We have a higher purpose and an eternal destiny beyond this planet which is not our home. The enlightenment denied all of this and says our end is death. Everything in our being contradicts this. Our soul wants to last forever and knows that it is immortal.
The enlightenment is darkness because it leads to materialistic atheism and savagery at its end point. It rejects God, the source of all goodness and Christ who came to redeem us from our sins by laying down his own life in reparation for them. What other religion has a God that does the highest thing possible for his creature: to lay down his own life? No man has a better friend than this. And yet the enlightenment with all its pride rejects him.
I thought registered charities such as churches could only be tax exempt if they weren't politically involved? What is prompting the 400 to abandon charitable status for the sake of political ideology?
Thanks David, interesting. Who minds a bit if the 'ToW 400' wants to weigh in on something yet to be crystalised, as long as they acknowledge they have no more moral authority than you or me. Big picture to me is one giant virtue-signal on their part, an instance of ostentatious virtue, elitism, while resisting the democratic idea that this thing should be kicked around all over the show, MUST be kicked around. Pfft to them.
'Then Prefect Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI)...'
More homework needed, I think.
Thanks John.
Mea maxima culpa.
I have edited the "now" to "formerly"
I suppose I could have described him as "the late Emeritus Pope"
Thanks for your editorial eye
Appreciate very much your clear logical analysis and in-depth research.
For me, I find both ACT's proposed bill (including both the first release and the 9 September version) as well as the Church 400 letter to be problematic.
With the Church 400 letter: they start with a quote from Psalm 15, which suggests that people should keep their oaths. They then go on to urge the PM and National Party to break their Coalition agreement with the ACT party by not supporting ACT's bill at its first reading. Well, you can't have your moralistic cake and eat it too!
And with ACT's proposed text: let's consider only the first stated principle. It's both out of context and is essentially superfluous, and therefore mischievous. The Sovereign Authority of Queen Victoria and Her Majesty's Governmental authority was at first extended to New Zealand by a Letters Patent issued 15 June 1839, which extended the Colony of New South Wales to include all of New Zealand and appointed Governor George Gipps as Governor of New Zealand (refer McDowell, Morag; Webb, Duncan (2002). The New Zealand Legal System (3rd ed.). LexisNexis Butterworths.; and McLean, Gavin (2006). The Governors: New Zealand's Governors and Governors-General. Dunedin: Otago University Press).
Following that there were: Governor Hobson's proclamations of British authority over New Zealand in 21 May 1840; the issue of a Royal Charter establishing New Zealand as a Colony separate from NSW 16 November 1840; and the New Zealand Constitution Acts of 1846 and 1852. The last of which was in force until the Constitution Act 1986. These all quite adequately and lawfully establish the Royal Authority of the Monarch in Right of New Zealand, presently His Majesty King Charles III.
The problem with this arises when ACT Party wants us all to vote in a referendum as to whether or not the NZ Government has any authority in the country. Well, it's already lawfully established anyway, then why should we vote on that question? And who is it that has the authority to put that question to the people at all? If we were to bring in to question the lawfulness of His Majesty's New Zealand Government, this would also bring into question the veracity of all the historical testimonies to which I refer above, the oaths of allegiance made by every current MP, the appointment of the Governor-General, as well as the 6 February 1840 Treaty itself! We would then be entering the realm of meaningless nihilism....
Consequently, I would affirm the stance taken by PM Luxon, that he and his party don't wish to support ACT's bill, but have only agreed to allow it to go to a First Reading and Select Committee in order to secure ACT's support to form a coalition government.
William
Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
I agree with your analysis but the Waitangi Tribunal, in a revisionist rewriting of history in 2014, said that Maori did not cede sovereignty. I think that principle 1 in the draft Bill is designed to put that beyond a shadow of doubt.
I'm wondering how we could read the treaty as not being an acceptance of Queen Victoria's sovereign authority (or, at the least, suzerainty?), when clause 3 grants the rights and privileges of British subjects. Of course, no one could have the rights and duties of a subject, unless one were to first recognise the authority of the Sovereign......
A very enlightening article 😀
The temporal authority of the Popes and the Church of Christ over the nations is necessary for the preservation of Christendom and the good of the world.
Our present world is in the terrible situation it is because that temporal authority has been rejected wholesale since the Protestant revolt, the spirit of which has spread even within the physical structures of the Catholic Church leaving her without a true Pope since 1958, with public heretics pretending to be her living rule of faith.
All around us we see the mystery of iniquity working with state sponsored genital mutilation being the latest consequence of the rejection of the spiritual authority of the Church. Things will continue to get worse in society until the temporal authority of the spiritual authority is restored.
I assume the Protestant revolt you refer to is the one started in 1517 with Luther's challenge and proceeded thereafter. The position that you advance is precisely what the Enlightenment opposed - the temporal authority of the Church. To achieve your desired outcome would require a roll back of the tsunami of history.
“The temporal authority of the Popes and the Church of Christ over the nations is necessary for the preservation of Christendom and the good of the world.” In my opinion that is a statement of breathtaking arrogance. Popes et al are no more than a man-made construct. A power grab from one quarter. God (or the concept of a Supreme Being) was besmirched by that.
The Papacy was instituted by Christ himself. Upon this Rock (Peter) I shall build my Church. There is no other. God himself will restore this when the time is right. The enlightenment is nothing but a return to the darkness of paganism. The state of the world we live in is a testament to the vacancy of that Holy See since 1958.
Thanks for your comment John. I disagree with what you say about the Enlightenment, the ideals of which now allow us the free exchange of ideas which we now enjoy and in which we participate on this platform.
I respectfully disagree. The free exchange of ideas in fields that are outside faith and morals was never a problem for Christian societies. However the greater supernatural good was rightly placed above all other considerations when it came to faith and morals.
If you don’t believe my first point, I would encourage you to read “Bearing false witness, by Rodney Stark.” A Protestant himself he debunks centuries of Anti-Catholic propaganda: https://www.amazon.com/Bearing-False-Witness-Debunking-Anti-Catholic/dp/1599474999
A free exchange of ideas in all areas leads to men losing a grasp on even natural reality as we are now witnessing with transgenderism.
Because contrary to what men might believe we are not just advanced apes (who by the way all have 24 pairs of chromosomes while humans have 23) but beings with reason and immortal souls. We have a higher purpose and an eternal destiny beyond this planet which is not our home. The enlightenment denied all of this and says our end is death. Everything in our being contradicts this. Our soul wants to last forever and knows that it is immortal.
The enlightenment is darkness because it leads to materialistic atheism and savagery at its end point. It rejects God, the source of all goodness and Christ who came to redeem us from our sins by laying down his own life in reparation for them. What other religion has a God that does the highest thing possible for his creature: to lay down his own life? No man has a better friend than this. And yet the enlightenment with all its pride rejects him.
I wish you every happiness in your beliefs, John.