MCVDK

THE PROVIDENCE OF UNITY Disputations on the Divine Ordination, the Fracturing of Mankind, and the Final Reconciliation of All Things: A Treatise in Three Parts (Part One) Authored by Fr. Wenceslas Bainbridge of Highborough The divine order of all things is set forth by God, whose will is immutable and unchallenged. From the beginning of time, He ordained unity among mankind, appointing the first man and woman to be His stewards upon the earth. Yet, as the ages passed, the stain of sin entered the world, corrupting the harmony that had once bound humanity together. Through rebellion and disobedience, the sons of men divided themselves, and the world was cast into disorder. This treatise, The Providence of Unity, is a theological disputation concerning the predestination of mankind’s unity; its divine ordination, its tragic fragmentation, and its eventual fulfillment through sanctification. It is composed of three parts, each addressing a fundamental truth in the greater arc of God’s providence. • The first part, The Banner Unbroken, establishes that unity is not a mere desire of men, but a foreordained truth decreed by God from the beginning. • The second part, The Chain of Sin, explores the corruption that led to mankind’s division and how only sanctification can undo the fractures of history. • The third part, The Throne Reconciled, concludes with the inevitable fulfillment of God’s plan; the spiritual and temporal restoration of all things in the final age. Through these works, the faithful are called to contemplate the divine purpose behind unity, to reject the falsehoods that sustain division, and to labor toward the sanctification that shall bring about the great reconciliation of all things. May these words serve as a guide to the righteous and a rebuke to the faithless, that all may come to see the truth of God’s will. —————————————————————————————————————————— PART ONE: THE BANNER UNBROKEN Disputations on the Divine Ordination of Unity and the Immutable Will of God: A Treatise From the first days of creation, God’s will for mankind was unity. He fashioned the first man and woman as one, breathed life into them with a singular purpose, and bestowed upon them the charge to order the world in harmony with His law. Their children, the four Sons, were set upon the earth not to be divided, but to labor together in righteousness, each fulfilling his ordained purpose within the greater whole. Yet, despite this divine foundation, men have strayed. They have forgotten that unity is not a choice, nor a thing to be crafted by the hands of kings; it is a law written into the very fabric of creation. In The Banner Unbroken, we shall explore the truth that unity is not a human construct, but a foreordained decree, established by the Almighty from the beginning. We shall examine the divine pattern of unity within the Scrolls, the role of kingship in maintaining this order, and the certainty of its restoration in the fullness of time. Let the faithful take heed, for to deny unity is to deny God’s design. And to those who seek to preserve division, let it be known: the banner of unity shall not be broken, for it was woven by the hands of the Lord Himself. —————————————————————————————————————————— EXAMINATION 1: THAT UNITY IS THE WILL OF GOD, FOREORDAINED FROM THE BEGINNING OF TIME The unity of mankind is not a construct of men, nor the invention of councils, but the outworking of God’s eternal and immutable decree. It is not by the designs of kings nor the treaties of rulers that humanity is called into oneness, but by the will of the Most High, set forth in the first days and upheld through all ages. The Scroll of Gospel attests: "In the beginning, the glory of God was singular and whole, and there was naught but Him, so there could be no pain or iniquity." (Gospel, 1:2) Before the corruption of Iblees, before the scattering of the Sons, before the wars of men, there was perfect unity, for the world was ordered by the hand of God. From this divine unity sprang forth all creation: the heavens and the earth, the greater and lesser lights, the seas, and the lands. Man himself was formed from the dust, not as separate tribes or disparate peoples, but as a singular race, shaped to bear the image of the Almighty. Thus, it follows that the disunity of mankind is not a natural state, nor an eternal ordinance, but a perversion; a deviation from the intended harmony of creation. For just as all things began in unity, so too shall they be restored to unity in the fulfillment of God’s providence. —————————————————————————————————————————— ARTICLE ONE: THE PATTERN OF UNITY IN CREATION It is a truth evident in all things that unity is the foundation of divine order. The Skies are arrayed in their appointed courses, and the Aenguls and Daemons serve as one before the throne of God. The law of virtue is unchanging, singular in its righteousness, given to man as a path not of division, but of collective adherence. The Scrolls do not speak of separate laws for separate peoples, nor do they commend the fragmentation of the faithful. "I am the Lord God without peer, and My Word is the holy word, and My path is the virtuous path, and all the blessings of the Virtue shall fall before the righteous who tread it." (Virtue, 1:9) When God created the first man and woman, He did not place them apart, but together. They were one flesh, one people, united in purpose and in faith. From them came the four Sons, each ordained to his own estate, but all bound by a single lineage, a single inheritance, and a single divine purpose: to order the world according to the will of the Most High. But sin entered the world, and with sin came division. The Sons of the first man and woman, instead of laboring together in righteousness, were led astray by their own desires. Pride, envy, wrath, and greed drove them apart, and from that day forth, mankind has known the pain of separation. Yet God’s will did not change. The unity that was first ordained remains the destiny of all things, and in the fullness of time, the divisions of men shall be undone, and they shall be gathered once more under the banner of righteousness. —————————————————————————————————————————— ARTICLE TWO: THE KINGSHIP OF HOREN AND THE ORDINATION OF UNITY Among the four Sons, it was Horen who was chosen as the anointed guide of mankind, not to divide, but to unite. His dominion was not one of conquest, but of order; established not by the sword, but by the decree of God. The Scroll of Gospel declares: "He placed the Sons above their people as kings, and they testified to His glory." (Gospel, 1:50) It was never the will of God that the sons of Horen should be scattered, nor that the throne of man should be fractured among quarrelsome lords. The kingship of Horen was a reflection of divine unity, and when he was called into the Sixth Sky, his children were meant to carry forth that charge, binding together the remnants of the faithful. But men, in their folly, turned against one another. The inheritance of unity was cast aside for petty ambitions. Kingdoms rose and fell, each claiming to be righteous, yet all failing to uphold the singular purpose for which they had been ordained. This was not the working of God, but the corruption of men, who sought their own glory rather than the glory of the Lord. Yet even in their waywardness, the truth of unity remained. Whenever a righteous king rose, he did not divide, but gathered. Whenever a prophet spoke, he did not call men apart, but together. For unity is not a mere ideal; it is the very will of God, and it shall not be denied. —————————————————————————————————————————— ARTICLE THREE: THE FINAL RESTORATION OF UNITY The prophecy of the Scrolls is clear: the divisions of men shall not endure forever. The Lord, in His mercy, has decreed a final reconciliation, wherein all peoples shall be brought back into one fold. The righteous shall be gathered, and the faithful shall know no more strife. The Scroll of Auspice proclaims: "Thus the world is changed, and the promise of Virtue is fulfilled." (Auspice, 49:5) This is the destiny of mankind; not to remain scattered, not to war endlessly among themselves, but to be restored to the unity from which they first came. This unity shall not be a matter of mere governance, nor of political convenience, but of spiritual renewal. The bonds that were broken by sin shall be reforged in righteousness, and the children of Horen shall once again be one people, under one God, in one faith. —————————————————————————————————————————— CONCLUSION Let none mistake the order set by God: TO THE FAITHFUL, I SAY: Cling to the promise of unity, for it is the inheritance of the righteous. Do not be swayed by those who claim that division is eternal, for they speak against the will of the Most High. TO THE LEADERS OF MEN, I SAY: Govern with wisdom, and seek not your own glory, but the restoration of God’s order. The divisions of this age are but shadows upon the wall; what is broken shall be mended, and what is scattered shall be gathered. TO THE DOUBTERS, I SAY: Fear not, for the will of God is unchanging. Though the path may seem long, and the trials many, the end is assured. The unity of mankind is not a vain hope, but a divine certainty, and it shall be fulfilled in the appointed time. For in the end, the will of God shall prevail, and the children of Horen shall be one once more. END OF EXAMINATION 1. THAT UNITY IS THE WILL OF GOD, FOREORDAINED FROM THE BEGINNING OF TIME —————————————————————————————————————————— Great art Thou, O Lord, and greatly to be praised, who dost ordain the course of time and lead Thy people to the fulfillment of all things. For Thou art the beginning and the end, the source of all authority and the fulfillment of all law. Thus is this treatise ended in Thee, who art blessed through all ages. Remaining the least of Thy servants, Fr. Wenceslas Bainbridge. Saint Jude, Pray for Us. Saint Kristoff, Pray for Us. Blessed Pius and Seraphim, Pray for Us. —————————————————————————————————————————— This is but the first treatise in the great inquiry into the predestination of a united humanity. The second shall now examine the cause of division: the corruption of sin, and the means by which sanctification shall restore what was lost. Let all who seek the truth attend with pious heed.

[!] A missive reached Father Witmar ( @rep2k ), whether by trusted courier or swift-winged messenger. Yet, before long, its contents found their way into the hands of the public, by fate or by design. [!] A Letter in Response to a Brother in Faith, Volume II To my esteemed brother in faith, Your letter, as ever, reaches me with gratitude. Not for its challenges alone, though they are delivered with conviction, but for the clarity that arises when men of faith sharpen one another in the pursuit of truth. As iron strengthens iron, so too do we, even in contention, fortify our understanding of the divine order. I do not write to overturn your arguments through mere contradiction, but to illuminate the depths where I believe your position wades too far into the dominion of the Altar while leaving the Throne with but a gilded chain in place of its scepter. The Church, being the sacred steward of divine law, must guide kings, but it must not be mistaken as their ruler. To do so is to upturn the very balance of authority that God Himself has established. i. The Church’s Authority is Moral, Not Juridical You argue that the Church does not seek to wear the Crown but merely anoint it, to sanctify and correct when rulers stray. Here, I find a degree of agreement: the Church must ensure that kings govern with righteousness, and its role as a moral beacon cannot be diminished. However, where we differ is in how this moral authority ought to be exercised. There is a vast chasm between offering guidance, even forceful admonition, and wielding the power to intervene in the affairs of state. You assert that the Church must actively ensure that kings do not stray, yet you do not define the means by which this would be done without trespassing into governance itself. If the Church possesses not only the right to counsel but the power to coerce, then it has, in effect, claimed a measure of secular rule. Consider the Scroll of Spirit: "The righteous shall govern with wisdom, and the faithful shall follow with trust." (Spirit, 1:12) Governance is an act of wisdom, not a matter of clerical decree. The faithful are called to follow, but in trust, not in forced obedience. If a king governs in righteousness, he should heed the wisdom of the Church, but if he does not, then his failure is his own to bear before God, not a pretext for the Church to assume dominion. Here, I do not reject that the Church may rebuke, excommunicate, or even call upon the faithful to resist an openly apostate ruler. Such measures are within its charge, for the preservation of faith demands it. Yet, to extend this role into one where the Church may directly shape the law, judge the ruler in his civil governance, or dictate the affairs of state, is to conflate two orders that were meant to exist in cooperation, not in submission one to the other. ii. The Nature of Anointment: Divine Will or Ecclesiastical Confirmation? You question why kings seek the Church’s blessing if their rule is solely derived from God. To this, I offer an answer: the anointment of rulers is a sacred affirmation of what is already ordained, not the source of their authority. It is a solemn recognition, much as a priest may bless a warrior before battle, yet it is not the priest’s blessing that grants the warrior his strength. Consider the words of the Scroll of Gospel: "And He placed the Sons above their people as kings, and they testified to His glory." (Gospel, 1:50) This passage is vital, for it makes clear that the right to rule was established by God Himself, without intermediary, without priestly decree. The role of the clergy in coronations is to bless and sanctify, not to grant dominion. I do not dispute that kings have sought and should seek the Church’s blessing. A king who reigns without faith reigns in peril, and a ruler who refuses the counsel of the clergy is unwise. But this does not mean that the Church holds the power to validate or invalidate his rule. If the anointment of the Church were an absolute necessity, then would not the kings of the past who ruled without such blessing, those who restored Canonist realms in times of ecclesiastical absence, be considered illegitimate? And yet, they were recognized by history and providence alike. The Church does not make kings; it advises them, blesses them, and warns them, but their authority comes from above, not from the altar. iii. Correction and Overreach: The Precedent of Power You write that the Church has intervened to correct wayward kings, that pontiffs have deposed the wicked and preserved the faith through direct action. On this, I do not dispute the historical record, but I question whether such instances are an example of rightful authority or of necessity in times of crisis. For even as you cite examples of the Church reigning in wicked rulers, have we not also seen the dangers of clerics who have sought to rule rather than guide? You yourself acknowledge High Pontiff Daniel II, whose era was marked not by spiritual unity but by chaos and discord wrought by overreach. The balance of power between the Throne and the Altar is delicate. When one assumes the rights of the other, disorder follows. The Church must remain a voice of moral authority, but it must not wield the instruments of governance, lest it become ensnared in the same corruption it seeks to prevent. A ruler may be admonished, may be condemned, may even face the spiritual penalty of excommunication, but governance itself must remain in the hands of kings. If we permit the Church to not only advise but to correct with binding authority, then where does the limit lie? Would the Church dictate war and peace? Would it determine the laws of taxation and trade? Would it render civil courts irrelevant in favour of ecclesiastical judgement? These questions are not of idle concern, for history has shown us that power, once claimed, is seldom relinquished. A Church that corrects is a Church that rules, and a Church that rules ceases to be the spiritual guide it was meant to be. iv. On Harmony: Finding the True Balance You write that my concern is submission while yours is unchecked rule. Here, I believe we find a palace of mutual concern, if not full agreement. A ruler left without faith will fall into folly. A ruler without moral accountability risks injustice. On these points, we stand aligned. But accountability does not necessitate subjugation. A king who forsakes virtue will face his judgement, whether through divine providence, the will of his people, or the slow decay of his own conscience. The Church’s role is not to govern, but to stand as a beacon of divine truth, to illuminate the path that a ruler should take, not to take it for him. There will always be tension between Throne and Altar, and so it must be. Too much distance, and faith is lost. Too much entanglement, and governance is undone. You seek the harmony of the two, as do I, but harmony is not found in one estate ruling over the other, but in each fulfilling its purpose, side by side, neither overshadowing nor subjugating the other. v. Conclusion: the Order God Established Must Stand My brother, you and I are not at war in this discourse. We stand as sentinels upon the same wall, gazing upon the same horizon. Yet, while you would place the Church as the watchman over the king, I hold that the king must stand with the priest, each a guardian in his own right. To rule without faith is ruinous. To wield faith as a throne is perilous. The Throne and the Altar must not be shackled to one another, but bound by mutual purpose; each upholding the other, neither assuming the station that God has reserved to its counterpart. I do not reject that kings must seek wisdom in faith. I do not deny that the Church must be the guide of nations. But I cannot accept that governance itself is a matter for the clergy. God has appointed rulers, and He will judge them accordingly; not as vassals of the Church, but as sovereigns under His divine gaze. Thus, may our discourse serve not as division, but as refinement of truth. In faith and fraternity, Fr. Wenceslas Bainbridge of Highborough.

[!] A missive reached Father Witmar ( @rep2k ), whether by trusted courier or swift-winged messenger. Yet, before long, its contents found their way into the hands of the public, by fate or by design. [!] A Letter in Response to a Brother in Faith To my esteemed brother in faith, Your letter finds me in good health, and I receive it with the reverence due to any discourse undertaken in the pursuit of truth. To challenge is not to undermine, and to debate is not to divide; such is the manner of learned men who seek, above all, the preservation of God’s law. I shall not call this a rebuttal either, for it is not my intent to oppose for opposition’s sake, but to clarify the matter with the full weight of our sacred texts. You have set forth an argument that the king’s authority is contingent upon the Church, that his rule must be tempered not merely by faith but by subjugation to clerical decree. I shall contend otherwise. It is not that the Church has no role in governance, on this, we are in agreement, but rather that the Throne and the Altar must stand as two pillars, each bearing its ordained weight. To mistake one for the other, or to shift the burden disproportionately, is to invite ruin upon both. i. The Divine Right of Kings is Not Subject to the Church You claim that my treatise suggests an unbridled kingship, free from all moral oversight, yet this is an error of presumption. No king is free from judgment; not of his people, not of history, and most certainly not of God. The Scroll of Gospel testifies to the truth that kingship is a divine station, set apart from clerical authority: "And He placed the Sons above their people as kings, and they testified to His glory." (Gospel, 1:50) God, not the Church, ordained the kingship of Horen and his line. It was not by priestly decree that he was placed over men, nor was it through ecclesiastical anointment that his authority was made legitimate. You speak of the Prophets anointing rulers, yet this does not establish clerical dominion; it merely affirms what God had already wrought. The priest recognizes, but does not create, the authority of kings. You ask, if kings are not to be judged by the Church, then why do we elect the High Pontiff? I answer plainly: the Head of the Church is chosen to shepherd the souls of the faithful, not to wield the scepter of dominion. The selection of a shepherd is not akin to the coronation of a king. Governance of the faithful does not necessitate governance over kings. To suggest that rulers must be wholly subject to clerical decree is to misunderstand the purpose of Divine Right. God does not appoint kings as the servants of priests, but as stewards of His creation. The duty of the Church is to guide, to advise, and to remind rulers of their obligation to justice and faith; but not to rule in their stead. ii. The Church’s Role in Governance is Moral, not Political You argue that the Church has not only the right but the duty to ensure that rulers act in accordance with divine will. I do not deny this, but I contend that there is a chasm between moral authority and political sovereignty. The Scroll of Spirit teaches: "The righteous shall govern with wisdom, and the faithful shall follow with trust." (Spirit, 1:12) Governance is an act of wisdom, not of clerical command. If it were otherwise, then why did the Exalted Owyn, even in his most righteous wrath, not install a priest upon the throne, but instead wielded both faith and kingship in their distinct capacities? The Prophets did not establish a theocracy, nor did they render kings as mere administrators of ecclesiastical will. They spoke the Word of God, but they did not replace the duty of the sovereign. You assert that the Church does not "rule" in the secular sense but must act as a necessary safeguard against tyranny. I ask in return: Who safeguards the Church? If rulers are to be held accountable, then so too must be the clergy. Has history not shown that even the priesthood, when unchecked, has strayed? Have there not been High Pontiffs who pursued personal ambition above sacred duty? The Church is not infallible; only God is. A just ruler heeds the wisdom of the Church, but he is not bound to obey blindly. For if he were, then his throne would be made of sand, shifting with the tides of ecclesiastical politics rather than standing firm in the unchanging will of God. iii. History Does Not Prove the Supremacy of the Church Over the State You invoke history, citing the fall of apostate states as evidence of the perils of secular rule. Yet I ask, brother, do you not also recall the times when kings who bowed too deeply before the clergy found their realms weakened by division? The fragmentation of the Holy Orenian Empire was not solely the result of separation from the Church, but rather the consequence of discord between those who sought to rule from the throne and those who sought to rule from the pulpit. It is not separation that breeds instability, but confusion of roles. The Scrolls forewarn us of the consequences when divine order is upturned: "I ordered the estates of the earth, and I have set a path before you." (Virtue, 6:4) The estates are ordered, not mingled. The king must govern, the priest must guide, and neither must seek to supplant the other. A realm in which the Church overreaches is no more stable than one in which the king rules without faith. The balance lies in cooperation, not submission. You claim that history proves the necessity of ecclesiastical supremacy. I argue that history proves only the necessity of righteous rule. Where kings have forsaken God, their kingdoms have fallen, but this is no evidence that the Church must wield temporal power. It is evidence only that a ruler who neglects faith invites ruin. A king must be pious, but piety does not make a king. iv. Conclusion: the True Order of Governance Brother, our debate is not one of opposition, but of refinement. I do not reject the guidance of the Church, nor do I deny the moral duty of the clergy to call rulers to righteousness. But I reject the notion that kingship must be bound in servitude to priestly decree. The king must rule. The priest must guide. One is accountable to God for the governance of his people, the other for the salvation of their souls. To conflate these roles is to weaken both. To burden the Church with the affairs of state is to distract it from its sacred mission. To encumber the king with the weight of clerical governance is to render him ineffective. You say that to reject the authority of the Church in governance is to invite chaos. I say that to force kings into submission to the clergy is to invite weakness. True order is found when both estates function as God intended: the Throne standing firm in governance, and the Altar standing steadfast in faith. In this, I stand firm. May God grant us both wisdom in this matter, and may our discourse serve not to divide, but to bring clarity to those who seek understanding. In faith and fraternity, Fr. Wenceslas Bainbridge of Highborough.

Upon the reading of the work by the Reverend Father Witmar, Throne and Altar: Church and State in the True Faith, I was moved to set forth the following reflections concerning the nature of sovereign rule and the rightful relation of priest and king. It is met that such discourse be undertaken with care, for it touches upon the very order of the world, the governance of men, and the sanctity of the faith. THE SCEPTER UNFETTERED Disputations in the Defense of the Divine Right of Kings and the Boundaries of Ecclesiastical Dominion: A Treatise Authored by Fr. Wenceslas Bainbridge of Highborough The order of all things proceeds from God, for in Him is found the first principle of dominion, authority, and governance. It is neither by accident nor by the caprice of men that power is wielded upon the earth, but by the divine ordination of the Most High, who has allotted to each their station according to His will. God, being infinite and immutable, does not establish disorder but rather appoints the proper hierarchies by which creation is sustained. The foundation of rule, therefore, does not emerge from the decrees of men, nor from the hand of priests, but from the sovereign and unchallenged will of the Almighty. For as it is written: "I ordered the estates of the earth, and I have set a path before you." (Virtue, 6:4) By this treatise, the division of offices is set forth; between priest and king, between altar and throne. The king is given the sword, the priest the staff. The one is called to govern, the other to guide. In no place is it written that the shepherd of souls may wield the crown of sovereignty, nor that the ruler of men must be shackled beneath the mitre. Let us then proceed with care, that we might distinguish truth from presumption, order from confusion. —————————————————————————————————————————— ARGUMENTUM The inquiry into the nature of kingship and its relation to the Church is not a trivial matter, but one that concerns the very order of the world as it has been established by divine will. The question at hand is thus: Does the authority of kings derive from God alone, or is it mediated through the Church? Must the ruler be subject to the will of clerics in his governance, or does his authority stand independently of ecclesiastical sanction? It has been contended by some that the king is no more than a vassal to the Church, that his right to rule is contingent upon the blessing of priests, and that without their approval, his reign is null. This argument, however, does not find its foundation in divine revelation, but in the presumption of those who seek to extend the dominion of the altar beyond its proper bounds. This treatise shall therefore examine three central propositions: 1. That kings receive their authority directly from God, not through the Church. 2. That the Church’s role is to counsel rulers in virtue, not to command them in governance. 3. That the laws of the realm must be distinct from Canon Law, as each estate has its own God-ordained function. The doctrine of divine kingship is not one of human ambition, but of providence. The priest does not anoint a king to make him sovereign; he anoints him because he already is. The legitimacy of rule is determined by God’s ordination, not by clerical decree. To hold otherwise is to reduce the monarch to a mere steward of the priesthood, to strip him of the dignity conferred upon him by the Creator, and to disorder the estates that God has placed in harmony. —————————————————————————————————————————— PART ONE: THE DIVINE ORDINATION OF KINGSHIP The rulership of kings is not the construct of men, nor the invention of councils, but the outworking of God’s unsearchable wisdom. The Scroll of Gospel attests: "He placed the Sons above their people as kings, and they testified to His glory." (Gospel, 1:50) Horen did not ascend to rule by the voice of clerics, nor did the priesthood establish his dominion. His sovereignty was a matter of divine ordination, proceeding not from anointing but from election by God Himself. It was not the Church that set him upon the throne, but the immutable decree of the Almighty. To claim that kingship requires the mediation of the priesthood is to mistake the role of the Church, which is to instruct in faith, not to govern in matters of state. The High Pontiff may confirm a king’s rule through blessing, but he does not establish it. Blessing does not create sovereignty; it recognizes it. If a king’s rule were wholly contingent upon the will of the Church, then the Church itself would be the true ruler of nations, and kings would be no more than administrators of clerical decree. This is an inversion of the natural order, for just as the priest is not to wield the sword, neither is he to wield the crown. It follows, then, that the legitimacy of a ruler does not depend upon clerical approval. A wicked king may be chastised, but he is not unmade by the decree of priests. A just king may be blessed, but his right to govern does not arise from that blessing. The authority of kings stands upon the will of God alone. —————————————————————————————————————————— PART TWO: THE CHURCH AS GUIDE, NOT MASTER It has been argued that the Church must hold dominion over kings, for without the oversight of priests, rulers may fall into vice and tyranny. The assumption here is that faith must be enforced by compulsion, that virtue cannot be maintained except by the threat of ecclesiastical censure. Yet, this position fails to account for the very nature of divine order. The Scroll of Spirit declares: "The righteous shall govern with wisdom, and the faithful shall follow with trust." (Spirit, 1:12) Governance is an act of wisdom, not of clerical compliance. The role of the priest is not to command, but to instruct. The High Pontiff is not an emperor, nor a king, nor a prince. His authority is spiritual, not temporal. When he oversteps this boundary, he ceases to act within the confines of his divine charge. A king must rule according to justice, not clerical decree. If he governs poorly, he will be judged; not by the Church, but by God, who has placed the scepter in his hand. The assumption that rulers are incapable of virtue apart from clerical oversight is an affront to the very concept of divine ordination. If God has appointed kings, He has also appointed them the wisdom to rule. History bears witness to the dangers of clerical overreach. Whenever the Church has sought to wield temporal power, it has done so at great cost to both faith and governance. The corruption of priests is no less a danger than the corruption of kings. Let each estate be mindful of its own charge, that neither may fall into ruin. —————————————————————————————————————————— PART THREE: THE SEPARATION OF CANON AND CIVIL LAW It is often said that all law must conform to Canon Law, that the statutes of kingdoms must be shaped according to the decrees of the Church. This assumption, however, disregards the fundamental distinction between spiritual and civil authority. The Scrolls do not command that the laws of men must be dictated by the priesthood. Rather, they teach that rulers must govern with wisdom. The law of the Church concerns the soul, while the law of the state concerns the order of the realm. The two are not interchangeable. A ruler must take into account matters of war, diplomacy, and justice, which are beyond the scope of ecclesiastical governance. If every decision of a king required the approval of clerics, governance would be reduced to paralysis. A nation cannot be ruled from the pulpit, nor can a kingdom be sustained by Canon Law alone. Let the Church oversee the faith, and let kings oversee the state. The harmony of the world depends upon each fulfilling its role. —————————————————————————————————————————— CONCLUSION Let none mistake the order set by God: the king is to govern, and the priest is to guide. The throne is not subject to the altar, nor is the altar subject to the throne. The two exist in harmony, each fulfilling its God-ordained duty. TO RULERS, I SAY: Govern with wisdom, but do not bow your crown to any save God. Your rule is given to you by Him alone. TO THE CHURCH, I SAY: Instruct in righteousness, but do not seek to command. The pulpit is not a throne, and the High Pontiff is not a king. TO THE FAITHFUL, I SAY: Trust in the order of the world, for it is as God has willed it. Let each estate serve as it was meant to, that justice and faith may flourish. —————————————————————————————————————————— Great art Thou, O Lord, and greatly to be praised, who didst establish the pillars of the world and didst appoint rulers by Thy wisdom. O Light of truth, grant that kings may govern in justice and that priests may guide in faith, that neither may stray from the charge Thou hast given them. For Thou art the beginning and the end, the source of all authority and the fulfillment of all law. Thus is this treatise ended in Thee, who art blessed through all ages. Remaining the least of Thy servants, Fr. Wenceslas Bainbridge. Saint Jude, Pray for Us. Saint Kristoff, Pray for Us. Blessed Pius and Seraphim, Pray for Us.

PROCLAMATION ON THE GOVERNANCE OF THE FREE TOWN OF BEZNOV. CONVENTUS ADRIAE. In the year 54 of the Age of Redemption and the Age of Resentment. ☩ BY THE FREE WILL OF THE DUMA AND THE ELECTED MANDATE OF THE EXILIC DUKE, THIS MISSIVE IS ISSUED IN THE SPIRIT OF A UNITED ADRIAN PEOPLE, GUIDED BY THE PRINCIPLES OF HONOR, DUTY, JUSTICE, LOYALTY, LIBERTY, AND WISDOM. THROUGH THIS COMMUNICATION, WE SHARE WITH YOU THE AFFAIRS AND STATECRAFT THAT SHAPE OUR FREE AND RESILIENT DUCHY. ‘LO UNTO THE ADRIANS, Let it be known to all subjects and denizens of the Exilic Duchy of the Adrians, and in particular to the good people of Beznov, that in the interest of securing the proper administration of the Free Town, ensuring its continued function as a prosperous and self-sustaining burghality, and upholding the spirit of the Fifth Franciscan Article, the following provisions are set forth by ducal decree: I. TEMPORARY WAIVER OF THE FOURTH GRADIC RIGHT: Whereas the Fourth Gradic Right, granted unto the Free Town of Beznov through the Fifth Franciscan Article, affirms that “the town has the right to choose a leader from amongst its own”, this right is hereby temporarily waived in light of the present absence of a functioning burghal government and a duly elected Maer. This waiver shall endure only so long as is necessary to establish a proper and sustained burghal administration. It shall not be construed as an abrogation of the burghers' rights but rather as a necessary measure to preserve and reinforce the institutions of self-governance in Beznov. II. APPOINTMENT OF AN INTERIM MAER: To ensure the continued governance and stability of Beznov, Eadric is hereby instated as Maer of the Free Town of Beznov. In this capacity, he shall exercise all rights, privileges, and responsibilities attendant to the office, including but not limited to: i. The oversight of burghal administration, ensuring order and the proper function of the town. ii. The stewardship of commerce and trade, safeguarding the interests of burghers, merchants, and craftsmen. iii. The enforcement of town law, upholding justice and resolving disputes in accordance with Adrian jurisprudence. iv. The representation of Beznov within the Exilic Duma, advocating for its rights and needs. This appointment shall remain in effect until such time as burghal governance is restored, at which point the Fourth Gradic Right shall be reinstated, and an election for the office of Maer shall be held as prescribed by the Charter of Self-Governance. III. CRAFTING OF A CHARTER OF SELF-GOVERNANCE: To prevent the future dissolution of burghal order, the Exilic Duke, in counsel with the Maer and appointed burghal representatives, shall draft and enact a Charter of Self-Governance for the Free Town of Beznov. This Charter shall provide a codified framework for burghal administration, outlining the mechanisms of governance, election, and accountability within the Free Town, including but not limited to: i. The procedures by which the Maer is elected, removed, or replaced. ii. The formation and role of a town council or governing assembly. iii. The powers and duties of the Maer in relation to both the town and the Exilic Duchy. iv. The guarantees of burghal stability and self-sufficiency. IV. RIGHT OF THE CITIZENRY TO REINSTATE THE FOURTH GRADIC RIGHT: As a bastion of Dumacracy and self-rule, the Exilic Duchy of the Adrians recognizes the right of the burghers of Beznov to reinstate their Fourth Gradic Right should they deem the waiver unnecessary or unduly prolonged. Thus, the citizenry of Beznov may, through a two-thirds majority vote in a duly summoned Duma, revoke this temporary waiver and immediately call for an election of the Maer, provided that the Charter of Self-Governance has not yet been completed and ratified within a reasonable time. Should such a vote be cast, the Exilic Duke shall hold no authority to contest the will of the people, and an election shall proceed forthwith to restore burghal self-rule without delay. V. FINAL PROVISIONS: Let it be understood and affirmed that this decree is issued not to diminish the liberties of Beznov, but to preserve and protect them. The Free Town, long a beacon of Adrian independence and trade, shall not be left to disorder or misrule, nor shall its people be denied their inherent rights due to the absence of governance. Thus, by the will of the Exilic Duke and the Free Adrian People, may this decree safeguard the Free Town of Beznov, ensure the prosperity of its people, and secure its governance for generations to come. HIS GRACE, Mateusz of the House Sarkozic, Exilic Duke of the Adrians, Count of Aldersberg, Protector of Dumacracy

THE FRANCISCAN ARTICLES. ☩ I. Lands and Titles Beholden to the Ducal Coronet. The following titles are hereby tied to the Ducal Coronet of the Adrians in perpetuity: i. Exilic Duke of the Adrians; ii. Lord of Beznov; iii. Protector of Dumacracy; iv. First Citizen of the Adrians. The following properties are likewise tied to the Ducal Coronet of the Adrians in perpetuity: i. The Free Town of Beznov. No lawful claim to the aforementioned titles or properties may be made without first claiming and holding the Exilic Duchy of the Adrians. II. Eligibility for the Ducal Coronet. A candidate for the Ducal Coronet must meet the following eligibility criteria: i. Be of the age of electoral majority, defined as sixteen years. ii. Be a faithful member of the Church of the Canon. iii. Be in good standing with the courts of the Duchy of Adria. iv. Have resided within any Holding of the Ducal Coronet for at least five years prior to the Ducal Election. v. Claim descent through Exalted Sigismund. III. The Franciscan Articles. The Ducal Coronet of the Adrians may only be assumed upon the signing of the Franciscan Articles, named in honor of Franz Vladov, the first Duke of Adria. These Articles form a binding covenant between the Exilic Duchy, represented by its Electors, and the reigning Exilic Duke, establishing the rights, duties, and limitations of Ducal authority. The Exilic Duke is chosen through a fair and equitable election conducted by the Ducal Electors, with no claim or right of inheritance granted to the Exilic Duke’s children or heirs, ensuring succession is determined by merit and choice rather than birthright. The Exilic Duke is required to convene a Duma, a formal assembly of the citizenry of the Exilic Duchy, at least once every two years. The Exilic Duke of the Adrians shall have no authority to impose new feudal or burghal taxes without the explicit approval of the Duma. All financial levies must be justified, debated, and consented to by the Duma prior to enactment. The Exilic Duke of the Adrians shall possess no unilateral authority to declare war or peace. Such decisions must receive the consent of the Duma, ensuring collective deliberation and the endorsement of the nobility. The Exilic Duke of the Adrians is required to provide for the maintenance, provisioning, and readiness of the standing Ducal Army, ensuring the defense and security of the Exilic Duchy. Should the Exilic Duke violate the law or infringe upon the established rights of the nobility, the Franciscan Articles empower the nobility to withhold obedience to the Exilic Duke’s orders. These Articles further authorize the nobility to take measures necessary to protect their rights and the integrity of the Exilic Duchy. In the event of a formally declared state of war, all taxation laws and regulations are suspended for the duration of hostilities. This suspension remains in effect until peace is officially declared, allowing the Exilic Duchy to address urgent fiscal demands for the war effort without procedural hindrance. IV. Protocol for the Passing Ducal Coronet. Upon the passing of the Exilic Duke, the Ducal Coronet of the Adrians shall be entrusted to the Primate of the Adrians, the Bishop of St. Emalyne. The Bishop is obligated to call for a Ducal Election within a period of no less than one year, serving as Interdux during this interim period. Upon the lawful election of a new Exilic Duke, the Bishop shall perform the coronation, ceremonially placing the Ducal Coronet upon the elected candidate, thereby affirming their authority as the rightful Exilic Duke of the Adrians. V. Bylaws of the Ducal Election. The Electors of the Exilic Duchy of the Adrians are defined as those determined through the Dumaggedon Doctrine. In the case of an interregnum, the Electors are those identified in accordance with the same doctrine as sworn to the previous Exilic Duke. For an election to be deemed legitimate, a minimum of three Ducal Electors must be present. If an Elector’s lineage becomes extinct and their lands and titles revert to the Exilic Duke, and fewer than three Electors remain, the Exilic Duke is required to elevate an individual to the electorship by granting them lands and titles to ensure the quorum is met. When a Ducal Election is called, the Electors are summoned by the Primate’s behest and must appear without arms or soldiers. If an Elector is unable to attend due to illness, a kinsman of their dynasty may represent them in the election. Once assembled, the Electors are prohibited from concluding the election without selecting an Exilic Duke. During the election, the gates to the assembly must remain closed, and no one other than the presiding Bishop and the Electors may enter. For an election to be legitimate, the Electors must reach a majority decision. If a majority cannot be reached, the Electors must continue to vote until a consensus is achieved. Should an election fail to produce a chosen Exilic Duke, another election must be called within one year. Until such an election is held and an Exilic Duke is chosen, the status quo shall be maintained. VI. Defining the Duma. The Duma shall be defined as the structured elected assembly representing the estates and citizenry of the Exilic Duchy of the Adrians, tasked with deliberating upon and rendering judgment on matters pertaining to the governance and welfare of the Exilic Duchy. The Duma shall function as a structured elected assembly with clearly defined membership and established limitations, thereby reflecting the voice and will of the people of the Exilic Duchy of the Adrians. The Exilic Duke shall serve as the ceremonial head of the Duma. The assembly shall consist of representatives from the nobility, local governance, clergy, and commonsmen elected directly by the citizenry. The Lord High Chancellor of the Adrians shall act as the representative of the Exilic Duke within the Duma, presiding over its sessions and ensuring that proceedings align with the directives of the Exilic Duke. The Duma holds the final authority on issues concerning laws, wars, alliances, and treaties, serving as the legislative and deliberative body of the Exilic Duchy. The Duma is convened at the request of the Exilic Duke and, as stipulated by the Franciscan Articles, must be assembled at least once every two years. Any property-holding citizen of the Exilic Duchy of the Adrians shall possess the right to speak before the Duma. Citizens may present proposals for acts, motions, or resolutions, provided such proposals adhere to the established procedural rules of the assembly. All proposals shall be subject to consideration, debate, and voting in accordance with the regulations and customs governing the Duma’s proceedings. The Lord High Chancellor shall ensure fair consideration of citizen proposals, maintaining orderly discourse within the assembly. All amendments to the Franciscan Articles, as well as any documents or reforms necessitating changes to the Articles, must be deliberated and approved by the Duma. For any motion to pass, it must achieve a clear majority among the assembled members, ensuring that decisions reflect the collective will of the estates. VII. Privileges of the Nobility. The nobility of the Exilic Duchy of the Adrians are defined as individuals who hold a noble title and their progeny up to the third degree, including great-grandchildren of a titled noble. Members of noble families with less than fifty percent noble blood shall not be recognized as nobles. Those raised to gentry and formally affirmed by the Exilic Duke of the Adrians are granted the same privileges as the nobility. Nobles are entitled to hold land in their name, with the assurance that such holdings shall remain within their lineage for future generations. All nobles of the Exilic Duchy shall hold the right to be judged solely by their peers, ensuring that no sentence or claim upon their lives, honor, or property may be rendered by individuals of lesser rank or privilege. The sole exception to this right shall be the Censor, whose authority in matters of justice is recognized by the Exilic Duchy. The right to duel is reserved exclusively for nobles, with no man of lower blood permitted to challenge one of noble standing. Nobles may also settle disputes through trial by combat, provided their opponent is of equal rank and privilege unless this right is formally waived by the accused. Nobles are granted the right to hunt within the Ducal Forest and properties. Such hunts must be conducted lawfully, with those hunting the Exilic Duke’s game without authorization branded as poachers. Hunting must also be carried out in moderation to ensure the preservation of the forest’s ecosystem. Lastly, nobles possess the right to carry out private law against another individual, free from the interference of the State or the Church. Matters of private law are to remain between the parties directly involved and shall not extend to their families unless the dispute becomes a public matter. VIII. Privileges of the Free Town of Beznov. These rights, modeled after the Gradic Rights of the City of Felsen (c. 1557), confer legal autonomy and privileges to the populace of Beznov as a collective entity, extending to individual landholders within the city’s jurisdiction. The Gradic Rights of the City of Felsen, c.1557 i. Hitherto the populace of this town shall be referred to as any legal landholder within municipal authority. ii. Hence the town has the right to waive feudal tithe and pay in coin. iii. Hence the town has the right to choose a leader from amongst its own. iv. Hitherto does the populace of this town have an exemption from serfdom. v. Hitherto does the populace of this town have the right to freedom of travel. vi. Hitherto does the populace of this town have the right to freedom of trade. vii. Hitherto does the populace of this town have the right to a trial by judge. viii. Hitherto does the populace of this town have the right to petition its lord. Authorship and Ratification. Originally penned by Barnabas Basarab, Ph.D, J.D, of the Imperial Institute at Johannesburg. Edited and corrected by His Excellency, Sigismund Varoche, Lord Chancellor of Adria, in the year 1904. Signed and affirmed by His Grace, Heinrik Sarkozic, Duke of Adria, in the year 1907. Revised and reaffirmed by the Grand Duma of Adria on the 11th of Tobias’ Bounty, in the year 1907. Edited and corrected by the Honourable, Caius Blackford, Censor of the Diaspora, in the year 2015. Signed and affirmed by His Grace, Mateusz Sarkozic, Exilic Duke of the Adrians, in the year 2016. Revised and reaffirmed by the Grand Duma of the Adrians on the 18th of Harren’s Folly, in the year 2016. Edited and corrected by the Honourable, Caius Blackford, Lord High Censor of the Diaspora, in the year 2020. Signed and affirmed by His Grace, Mateusz Sarkozic, Exilic Duke of the Adrians, in the year 2020. Revised and reaffirmed by the Grand Duma of the Adrians on the 20th of Sun’s Smile, in the year 2020. AMENDMENT, 1907 To ARTICLE II: "ELIGIBILITY FOR THE DUCAL CORONET" It has been resolved by the Grand Duma of Adria that, to shield the Ducal Coronet from the threat of foreign pretense in an election for Dux, and to ensure that merit determines the best candidate for the ducal election, all noble candidates must have served the Duchy of Adria for no less than five years. The text of ARTICLE II shall henceforth read: II. Eligibility for the Ducal Coronet. A candidate for the Ducal Coronet must meet the following eligibility criteria: i. Be of the age of electoral majority, defined as sixteen years. ii. Be a faithful member of the Church of the Canon. iii. Be in good standing with the courts of the Duchy of Adria. iv. Have resided within any Holding of the Ducal Coronet for at least five years prior to the Ducal Election. v. Claim descent through Exalted Sigismund. RESOLVED, by unanimous vote of the 1st Adrian Grand Duma, 11th of Tobias’ Bounty, 1907. THE PRECEDING HAS BEEN AFFIRMED, NOTARIZED, ORGANIZED, SYSTEMATIZED, AND COLLATED by Paul Sarkozic, Seneschal of the Courts of Adria, 6th of Sun’s Smile, 1907. --- SECTION ENDS --- --- SECTION BEGINS --- AMENDMENT, 2016 To ALL ARTICLES It has been resolved by the Grand Duma of the Adrians that, to uphold modern standards, minor amendments in wording have been made. Furthermore, all mentions of "Duke" or "Duchy" have been amended to "Exilic Duke" or "Exilic Duchy," with the official designation of the "Exilic Duchy of the Adrians" replacing previous nomenclature where applicable. To ARTICLES I: “LANDS AND TITLES BEHOLDEN TO THE DUCAL CORONET” It has been resolved by the Grand Duma of the Adrians that, in order to maintain a well-updated and accurate collection of articles, the titles and properties beholden to the Ducal Coronet shall be accurately defined as held in the land of Aevos. The text of ARTICLE I shall henceforth read: I. Lands and Titles Beholden to the Ducal Coronet. The following titles are hereby tied to the Ducal Coronet of the Adrians in perpetuity: i. Exilic Duke of the Adrians; ii. Lord of Beznov; iii. Protector of Dumacracy; iv. First Citizen of the Adrians. The following properties are likewise tied to the Ducal Coronet of the Adrians in perpetuity: i. The Free Town of Beznov. No lawful claim to the aforementioned titles or properties may be made without first claiming and holding the Exilic Duchy of the Adrians. RESOLVED, by unanimous vote of the 4th Grand Duma of the Adrians, 18th of Harren's Folly, 2016. THE PRECEDING HAS BEEN AFFIRMED, NOTARIZED, ORGANIZED, SYSTEMATIZED, AND COLLATED by Mateusz Sarkozic, Exilic Duke of the Adrians, 6th of Owyn’s Flame, 2016. --- SECTION ENDS --- --- SECTION BEGINS --- AMENDMENT, 2020 To ARTICLE VI: “DEFINING THE DUMA” It has been resolved by the Grand Duma of the Adrians that, in order to maintain active governance of the Adrian Holdings and, primarily, Beznov, the Duma must transition into a more structured national assembly, expanding its legislative function beyond its current scope. The text of ARTICLE VI shall henceforth read: VI. Defining the Duma. The Duma shall be defined as the structured elected assembly representing the estates and citizenry of the Exilic Duchy of the Adrians, tasked with deliberating upon and rendering judgment on matters pertaining to the governance and welfare of the Exilic Duchy. The Duma shall function as a structured elected assembly with clearly defined membership and established limitations, thereby reflecting the voice and will of the people of the Exilic Duchy of the Adrians. The Exilic Duke shall serve as the ceremonial head of the Duma. The assembly shall consist of representatives from the nobility, local governance, clergy, and commonsmen elected directly by the citizenry. The Lord High Chancellor of the Adrians shall act as the representative of the Exilic Duke within the Duma, presiding over its sessions and ensuring that proceedings align with the directives of the Exilic Duke. The Duma holds the final authority on issues concerning laws, wars, alliances, and treaties, serving as the legislative and deliberative body of the Exilic Duchy. The Duma is convened at the request of the Exilic Duke and, as stipulated by the Franciscan Articles, must be assembled at least once every two years. Any property-holding citizen of the Exilic Duchy of the Adrians shall possess the right to speak before the Duma. Citizens may present proposals for acts, motions, or resolutions, provided such proposals adhere to the established procedural rules of the assembly. All proposals shall be subject to consideration, debate, and voting in accordance with the regulations and customs governing the Duma’s proceedings. The Lord High Chancellor shall ensure fair consideration of citizen proposals, maintaining orderly discourse within the assembly. All amendments to the Franciscan Articles, as well as any documents or reforms necessitating changes to the Articles, must be deliberated and approved by the Duma. For any motion to pass, it must achieve a clear majority among the assembled members, ensuring that decisions reflect the collective will of the estates. To ARTICLE VIII: “PRIVILEGES OF THE FREE TOWN OF BEZNOV” It has been resolved by the Grand Duma of the Adrians that, in order to ensure the governance of Beznov is executed properly and functions harmoniously within the broader framework of Ducal governance, certain autonomous rights and privileges must be rescinded or restructured to better integrate the township into the Ducal system. The text of ARTICLE VIII shall henceforth read: VIII. Privileges of the Free Town of Beznov. These rights, modeled after the Gradic Rights of the City of Felsen (c. 1557), confer legal autonomy and privileges to the populace of Beznov as a collective entity, extending to individual landholders within the city’s jurisdiction. The Gradic Rights of the City of Felsen, c.1557 i. Hitherto the populace of this town shall be referred to as any legal landholder within municipal authority. ii. Hence the town has the right to waive feudal tithe and pay in coin. iii. Hence the town has the right to choose a leader from amongst its own. iv. Hitherto does the populace of this town have an exemption from serfdom. v. Hitherto does the populace of this town have the right to freedom of travel. vi. Hitherto does the populace of this town have the right to freedom of trade. vii. Hitherto does the populace of this town have the right to a trial by judge. viii. Hitherto does the populace of this town have the right to petition its lord. RESOLVED, by unanimous vote of the 4th Grand Duma of the Adrians, 20th of Sun’s Smile, 2020. THE PRECEDING HAS BEEN AFFIRMED, NOTARIZED, ORGANIZED, SYSTEMATIZED, AND COLLATED by Mateusz Sarkozic, Exilic Duke of the Adrians, 15th of Owyn’s Flame, 2020.

APPOINTMENT OF THE CENSOR OF THE DIASPORA. CONVENTUS ADRIAE. In the year 54 of the Age of Redemption and the Age of Resentment. ☩ BY THE FREE WILL OF THE DUMA AND THE ELECTED MANDATE OF THE EXILIC DUKE, THIS MISSIVE IS ISSUED IN THE SPIRIT OF A UNITED ADRIAN PEOPLE, GUIDED BY THE PRINCIPLES OF HONOR, DUTY, JUSTICE, LOYALTY, LIBERTY, AND WISDOM. THROUGH THIS COMMUNICATION, WE SHARE WITH YOU THE AFFAIRS AND STATECRAFT THAT SHAPE OUR FREE AND RESILIENT DUCHY. ‘LO UNTO THE ADRIANS, Let it be known across all lands where Adrians reside, that in the interest of upholding the integrity of our laws, the preservation of our customs, and the continued governance of our people, Caius Blackford is hereby appointed Censor of the Diaspora. In this role, the Censor of the Diaspora shall be charged with the maintenance of law, the scribing of decrees, and all relevant matters of papyrus-mancy. From this post, he shall record and codify legal matters, ensuring that all statutes and rulings are properly documented and preserved for the posterity of the Exilic Duchy. Furthermore, he shall oversee public morality, ensuring that Adrian conduct remains true to the values of our people, and enforce the proper observance of Adrian law, ensuring that order is upheld wherever Adrians may dwell. Through him, all judicial affairs shall be reviewed and maintained, and the voice of law shall remain ever vigilant in the affairs of the Exilic Duchy and its scattered folk. Let those who seek justice and governance know that their grievances and petitions shall pass through his hands, that no matter be left unaccounted for, and no decree left to dust. Thus, let it be declared that Caius Blackford shall take up the mantle of Censor of the Diaspora, bearing the solemn duty of safeguarding the law and guiding the Adrian people with wisdom and diligence. May his quill be as sharp as a sword, and may the rule of law endure through his service. HIS GRACE, Mateusz of the House Sarkozic, Exilic Duke of the Adrians, Count of Aldersberg, Protector of Dumacracy

THE FORMAE SUBMISSIONIS GENERALES; OR, GENERAL FORMS OF SUBMISSION FOR THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE CHURCH OF THE CANON; AS FIRST PENNED, COMPILED AND PUBLISHED BY: HIS EXCELLENCY, PRINCIPAL JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT, FR. WENCESLAS BAINBRIDGE; BY THE AUTHORITY OF: THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE CHURCH OF THE CANON. CONTENTS CHAPTER I. ー Exordium CHAPTER II. ー General Provisions RULE I. ー Authority and Jurisdiction RULE II. ー Submission of Petitions and Appeals CHAPTER III. ー Submission of Petition CHAPTER IV. ー Submission of Appeal CHAPTER V. ー Submission by the Prosecution CHAPTER VI. ー Final Provisions RULE I. ー Compliance CHAPTER I. EXORDIUM The High Court of Justice, in its solemn duty to uphold the integrity of Canon Law and the administration of ecclesiastical justice, hereby promulgates these guidelines for the proper submission of petitions, appeals, and prosecutorial memoranda before this tribunal. The purpose of this document is to provide a structured and authoritative framework for submissions to ensure due process, procedural compliance, and adherence to the principles of ecclesiastical jurisprudence. All proceedings before the High Court shall be governed by the established Praecepta Procedendi which comprehensively delineate the Court’s jurisdiction, composition, and the manner in which judicial matters shall be conducted. These guidelines serve as an auxiliary reference to facilitate the proper execution of procedural mandates and to ensure the orderly administration of justice. It is incumbent upon all parties submitting matters before this Court to conduct themselves with due reverence, to observe the prescribed legal forms, and to submit only those cases that fall within the jurisdictional competence of the High Court. Failure to adhere to the required procedural formalities may result in dismissal or other appropriate judicial action. It should be noted that the specific formats provided within this document serve as guidelines and may be amended by the submitting party as necessary, provided that such amendments remain consistent with the procedural rules governing petitions, appeals, and prosecutorial submissions. Any deviation from these guidelines must still ensure compliance with the Praecepta Procedendi and maintain the integrity of the legal and ecclesiastical framework. CHAPTER II. GENERAL PROVISIONS RULE I. ー AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION ART. 1. The High Court of Justice exercises supreme judicial authority within the Church of the Canon, including the interpretation and application of Canon Law, adjudication of ecclesiastical disputes, and oversight of civil disputes within the Pontifical States. ART. 2. All proceedings before the High Court shall adhere to Canon Law, the Constitution of the Pontifical States, and the Praecepta Procedendi. ART. 3. Petitions or appeals that do not meet these criteria may be summarily dismissed. RULE II. ー SUBMISSION OF PETITIONS AND APPEALS ART. 1. Any petitioner or appellant must present their case in a formalized manner, adhering to the required structure as established in the submission guidelines. ART. 2. Each submission must: i. Clearly state the facts of the case; ii. Identify the parties involved; iii. Include any supporting evidence or documentation; iv. And, specify the relief sought. ART. 3. Failure to meet these requirements may render a submission defective, warranting preliminary dismissal pursuant to the Praecepta Procedendi, Chapter II, Rule II, Article 2, which allows for rejection of cases lacking jurisdictional merit, evidentiary sufficiency, or substantive legal grounding. CHAPTER III. SUBMISSION OF PETITION CHAPTER IV. SUBMISSION OF APPEAL CHAPTER V. SUBMISSION BY THE PROSECUTION CHAPTER VI. FINAL PROVISIONS RULE I. ー COMPLIANCE ART. 1. The submission of petitions, appeals, and prosecutorial statements before the High Court is a solemn and serious matter, demanding meticulous compliance with the established procedural rules. ART. 2. All parties seeking redress or judicial intervention must ensure the propriety of their submissions, lest they risk procedural dismissal or other sanctions.

APPOINTMENT OF THE CAPTAIN OF THE GREYCLOAK WATCH. CONVENTUS ADRIAE. In the year 53 of the Age of Redemption and the Age of Resentment. ☩ BY THE FREE WILL OF THE DUMA AND THE ELECTED MANDATE OF THE EXILIC DUKE, THIS MISSIVE IS ISSUED IN THE SPIRIT OF A UNITED ADRIAN PEOPLE, GUIDED BY THE PRINCIPLES OF HONOR, DUTY, JUSTICE, LOYALTY, LIBERTY, AND WISDOM. THROUGH THIS COMMUNICATION, WE SHARE WITH YOU THE AFFAIRS AND STATECRAFT THAT SHAPE OUR FREE AND RESILIENT DUCHY. ‘LO UNTO THE ADRIANS, Let it be declared before all Adrians, that in the interest of securing our towns, defending our people, and restoring the might of Adrian arms, Cahnor de la Baltas is hereby appointed as Captain of the Greycloak Watch. In this station, he shall be entrusted with the command of all military forces within the Free Town of Beznov and other Adrian strongholds. As the spearhead of the Adrian Armed Forces, he shall organize levies, direct military action, and safeguard our settlements against any who would bring harm to the Exilic Duchy. From his command, the Greycloak Watch shall be reforged into the shield of the Adrian people, ensuring that no foe, within or without, may threaten the freedom of our lands. Under his leadership, the watchmen shall uphold the highest standards of discipline and vigilance, ready to answer the call to arms at a moment’s notice. In his absence, his designated second shall assume temporary command, that the strength of Adrian arms remains steadfast and unbroken. No hour shall be left unguarded, nor any threat unanswered, so long as the Greycloaks stand their watch. Thus, let it be known that Cahnor de la Baltas bears the charge of this office, and with it, the solemn duty of defending Adria’s lands, people, and honor. May his command be just, his sword be swift, and his watch be eternal. HIS GRACE, Mateusz of the House Sarkozic, Exilic Duke of the Adrians, Count of Aldersberg, Protector of Dumacracy

PROCLAMATION OF MARTIAL REFORMATION. CONVENTUS ADRIAE. In the year 53 of the Age of Redemption and the Age of Resentment. ☩ BY THE FREE WILL OF THE DUMA AND THE ELECTED MANDATE OF THE EXILIC DUKE, THIS MISSIVE IS ISSUED IN THE SPIRIT OF A UNITED ADRIAN PEOPLE, GUIDED BY THE PRINCIPLES OF HONOR, DUTY, JUSTICE, LOYALTY, LIBERTY, AND WISDOM. THROUGH THIS COMMUNICATION, WE SHARE WITH YOU THE AFFAIRS AND STATECRAFT THAT SHAPE OUR FREE AND RESILIENT DUCHY. ‘LO UNTO THE ADRIANS, Let it be known to all Adrians, near and far, that the Exilic Duma, in pursuit of the continued strength and honor of our people, does hereby decree a restructuring of the Adrian Armed Forces. DISSOLUTION OF THE HAJDUK REGIMENT: Effective immediately, the Hajduk Regiment is formally disbanded in its entirety. Any soldiers who once swore fealty to this regiment are hereby released from their duty, free to take up new service in the defense of all Adrians, or to return to their lives in peace. The Hajduk Regiment, having served in its time, now passes into the annals of history, as the Exilic Duchy looks forward to a future built upon the foundations of our enduring martial traditions. RESTORATION OF THE GREYCLOAK WATCH: To safeguard our people and uphold the strength of Adrian arms, the historical Greycloak Watch shall be reinstated as the primary militaristic force of the Adrians. As it once stood as the shield of the Adrian folk, so too shall it now rise again, to serve as the Spearhead Regiment of the Adrian Armed Forces. In unison with the more specialized Order of St. Emma, the Greycloak Watch shall ensure the safety and sovereignty of the Exilic Duchy, its Duma, and its Duke. With this decree, the Adrians steps forward in unity, its banners raised high, its arms tempered anew. May our defenders stand unshaken, and may the Exilic Duchy endure through steel, spirit, and sovereignty. HIS GRACE, Mateusz of the House Sarkozic, Exilic Duke of the Adrians, Count of Aldersberg, Protector of Dumacracy

THE HIGH DUMA. A hush of anticipation loomed over Beznov. The people gathered, their voices kept to murmurs as servants and workers hurriedly made their final preparations. The High Duma was imminent, and with it, the selection of a new Exilic Duke; an event that came but once in a millennium. The weight of history pressed upon the town, filling the air with a strange mixture of hope and unease, of excitement and trepidation for the future. As day gave way to evening, the Electors began to arrive. First came Mateusz Sarkozic, then the ailing Exilic Duke himself, his presence a solemn reminder of time’s relentless march. One by one, they entered the grand Duma Hall, where the Reverend Bishop Godfrey stood at the head, ready to preside over the proceedings. With the gathered assembly, the Bishop’s voice rang out through the hall, calling each elector to account: “The Exilic Duke of the Adrians.” — “Present.” “The Count of Aldersberg.” — “Present.” “The Baron of Eulersburg.” — “Present.” “The Baron of Madvon.” — “Present.” “The Abbot of Owynswood.” — “Present.” The roll continued. “Alexios Cardinal St. Emalyne.” — “Present.” “Sir Aslan Vargmark.” Silence fell. “Sir Markus Marie.” No reply. “Sir Rickard Vladov.” Silence once more. “Sir Tutel Ritter.” — “Present.” “Sir Vacslav Suzecz.” — “Voted in absentia.” “Dame Zofia Suzecz.” — “Present.” The names went on, one after another. “Burgher Josef Euler.” — “Present.” “Burgher Regina Bluecrest.” — “Present.” “Burgher Stefan Euler.” — “Present.” Then came the noble houses. “The House of Sarkozic var Aldersberg.” — “Present.” “The House of Suzecz.” — “Voted in absentia.” “The House of Tuvyic.” Silence. “The House of Vladov.” — “Present.” “The House of Barbanov.” Silence. “The House of Basrid var Susa.” Silence. “The House of Ivanovich.” Silence… then, at last— “Present.” “The House of Kovachev.” No answer. “The House of Rostova.” — “Present.” “The House of Sarkozic var Helena.” — “Present.” One after another, names were called, and silence answered in kind. “The House of Ludovar.” Silence. “The House of Montalt.” Silence. “The House of Novellen.” Silence. “The House of Ruthern var Balian.” Silence. “The House of Ruthern var Haense.” Silence. As the final count was taken, the Bishop’s eyes swept over the gathered electors, his fingers running along the parchment. He nodded, then looked up once more. “Does anyone wish to name their nominees?” His Grace, Stefan Euler, stepped forward with certainty. “I believe the future lies with Mateusz Sarkozic.” The Bishop’s gaze passed over the room. “Any other nominees?” Silence held, stretching long enough for the tension to thicken; until Burgher Regina Bluecrest raised her voice. “I nominate my horse, Cupcake.” There was a moment of stunned quiet. A few exchanged glances, some raised their brows, but in the end, shoulders lifted in a collective shrug. “We shall accept the nomination of Cupcake, the famed steed of Regina Bluecrest.” And so, the voting began. The fate of the Exilic Duchy rested in the hands of those gathered, and soon, the tally would decide its course. PROCLAMATION OF DUCAL SUCCESSION. CONVENTUS ADRIAE. In the year 53 of the Age of Redemption and the Age of Resentment. ☩ BY THE FREE WILL OF THE DUMA AND THE ELECTED MANDATE OF THE EXILIC DUKE, THIS MISSIVE IS ISSUED IN THE SPIRIT OF A UNITED ADRIAN PEOPLE, GUIDED BY THE PRINCIPLES OF HONOR, DUTY, JUSTICE, LOYALTY, LIBERTY, AND WISDOM. THROUGH THIS COMMUNICATION, WE SHARE WITH YOU THE AFFAIRS AND STATECRAFT THAT SHAPE OUR FREE AND RESILIENT DUCHY. ‘LO UNTO THE NOBLE ELECTORS, THE EXILIC DUMA, AND THE ADRIANS, Let it be known across all lands where the banners of the Adrians yet fly, that the noble Electors of the Exilic Duma of the Adrians, in accordance with the Dumageddon Doctrine, have convened and fulfilled their solemn duty in selecting the next steward of our people. By the vote of the Duma, cast in accordance with the honored traditions of our folk, the results have been duly tallied: · Mateusz Sarkozic – 11 Votes · Cupcake, the Famed Steed of Regina Bluecrest – 5 Votes Thus, by the sovereign will of the Adrian Electors, Mateusz Sarkozic, Count of Aldersberg, is hereby proclaimed Exilic Duke of the Adrians, to reign in service to the Exilic Duchy and to uphold its sacred liberties, traditions, and enduring legacy. The election of His Grace, Mateusz Sarkozic, is a testament to the resilience of the Adrian spirit, and to the undying will of our people to govern ourselves in defiance of tyranny and exile. With him at the helm, let us stand united in our pursuit of freedom, prosperity, and the restoration of Adrian greatness. To Cupcake, the Famed Steed of Regina Bluecrest, we extend our respect and admiration, for even in jest there is wisdom, and in every voice of Adria, there is meaning. Let this election serve as a reminder that in the Exilic Duchy, all who bear the Adrian heart, be they knight or commoner, lord or steed, may take part in the shaping of our destiny. HIS GRACE, Mateusz of the House Sarkozic, Exilic Duke of the Adrians, Count of Aldersberg, Protector of Dumacracy

Beznov Stirs. It was late in the eve on an otherwise unremarkable day, in an ordinary year, some weeks into the month of Horen’s Calling. As night fell, silence settled over Beznov, turning the normally quiet town into something almost spectral. A thick fog rolled lazily across the hilly Adrian landscape, weaving between rooftops and obscuring the cobbled streets. Yet, beneath the lantern glow, figures moved with purpose, and the steady clanking of tools echoed through the mist-shrouded air. Where once lay an untouched field, serene in its natural splendor, now churned a pit of upturned earth; scarred and trodden as though a great host had stormed through. Grass and wildflowers had been uprooted, their roots exposed to the night, leaving behind only mud, footprints, and the marks of industry. In the days that followed, wagons laden with wood, fabric, and all manner of construction materials wound their way through Beznov’s narrow streets. Each bundle was carefully placed by the freshly dug pit, just across from the famed Duma Hall. Slowly, a transformation took shape. Timber was raised, canvas stretched, and in the midst of it all, a jousting ground began to emerge. What had been a lifeless expanse of disturbed soil became something new. The dirt paths formed bustling streets between brightly colored stalls and towering tents. Stages rose, carriages parked, and circles were marked for contests of skill and merriment. What once stood as a quiet field, untouched in its natural beauty, had been reborn; no longer a place of stillness, but a hub of celebration, anticipation, and gathering. Surely, something grand was on the horizon. Why else would time and coin be poured into such an endeavor? Something was coming. BEZNOV STIRRED. ( Build and images by JakubMaybe )

SUMMONING OF THE DUCAL ELECTORS: HIGH DUMA OF THE EXILIC DUCHY OF THE ADRIANS. CONVENTUS ADRIAE. In the year 52 of the Age of Redemption and the Age of Resentment. ☩ BY THE FREE WILL OF THE DUMA AND THE ELECTED MANDATE OF THE EXILIC DUKE, THIS MISSIVE IS ISSUED IN THE SPIRIT OF A UNITED ADRIAN PEOPLE, GUIDED BY THE PRINCIPLES OF HONOR, DUTY, LIBERTY, FRATERNITY, VALOR, AND WISDOM. THROUGH THIS COMMUNICATION, WE SHARE WITH YOU THE AFFAIRS AND STATECRAFT THAT SHAPE OUR FREE AND RESILIENT DUCHY. ‘LO UNTO THE DUCAL ELECTORS & THE ADRIAN PEOPLE, In keeping with the traditions of our forebears and the enduring principles of the Exilic Duma, the Ducal Electors are hereby summoned to convene in a High Duma at the seat of Adrian governance. The purpose of this assembly is to determine the future leadership of the Exilic Duchy in accordance with the customs of our land and the mandate of our people. With the recent abdication of His Grace, Stefan Euler, the Exilic Duke, it is the solemn duty of the Electors to gather and fulfill their sacred responsibility to the Exilic Duchy. This Duma is summoned not only as a matter of governance but as an occasion to honor the unity and liberty of the Adrian folk. The Dumageddon Doctrine, born from the legacy of the Adrian Dumapaloozas and safeguarded through negotiations between Houses Sarkozic and Barbanov, ensures that the Exilic Duma represents every stratum of Adrian society: nobles, knights, burghers, and historic houses. Its purpose is to preserve Adria’s autonomy, guide its governance, and safeguard its cherished traditions. This High Duma carries the weight of history and requires the presence of all eligible electors to cast their votes according to their rank and responsibility. ELECTORAL DECREE: The Duma shall consist of the following categories of electors, each carrying the weight of Adrian tradition and the voices of their constituents. All electors are urged to present themselves promptly, accompanied by appropriate retinues and prepared to deliberate upon the matters at hand. I. NOBILITES ADRIATI The Nobles of Adria bear the greatest voting power in the Duma, reflecting their stewardship over the lands and fealty to the Exilic Duchy. Each noble elector wields one vote, representing the strength of their holdings and their commitment to the Adrian realm. i. The Exilic Duke of the Adrians, Stefan ‘the Sage’; ii. The Count of Aldersberg, Mateusz Marcin; iii. The Baron of Eulersburg, Stefan ‘the Sage’; iv. The Baron of Madvon, Adelmar von Kanunberg; v. The Abbot of Owynswood, Father Vasyl of Montfort. II. EQUITES ADRIATI The Knights and Scholars of Adria, revered for their service, wisdom, and valor, hold significant influence within the Duma. Each Equite is granted one vote, symbolizing their merit-based contributions to the Exilic Duchy. i. Alexios Cardinal St Emalyne; ii. Sir Aslan Vargmark; iii. Sir Markus Marie; iv. Sir Rickard Vladov; v. Sir Tutel Ritter; vi. Sir Vacslav Suzecz; vii. Dame Zofia Suzecz. III. PATRICII ADRIATI Each Burghers and Artisans of Adria, who embody the prosperity and industrious spirit of the Exilic Duchy, carry one vote in the Duma. Their voices reflect the mercantile heart of Adria’s economy. i. Burgher Josef Euler; ii. Burgher Regina Bluecrest; ii. Burgher Stefan Euler. IV. CROWS ADRIATI Each Noble Houses with Ties to the Founding Houses of Sarkozic and Vladov carry one vote, representing the shared legacy of their historical role in Adrian statehood. i. Sarkozic var Aldersberg; ii. Suzecz; iii. Tuvyic; iv. Vladov. V. CROWS PROPIUS Each Lord Crows of Prominent Carrion Houses, with direct historical ties to Adria, bear one vote, contributing to matters of general governance. However, their votes are nullified in existential questions concerning Adria’s sovereignty. i. Barbanov; ii. Basrid var Susa; iii. Ivanovich; iv. Kovachev; v. Rostova; vi. Sarkozic var Helena. VI. CROWS EXTERIUS The Distant Carrion Houses, while granted a spectator seat in the Duma, collectively wield one vote as a bloc. This vote is excluded from existential decisions about the Duchy’s legacy. i. Ludovar; ii. Montalt; iii. Novellen; iv. Ruthern var Balian; v. Ruthern var Haense. PROCLAMATION OF CONVENTION: The High Duma shall convene on the appointed date of [Saturday 8th of February, 4 PM EST], at Duma Hall of Beznov, accompanied by a grand festival to honor the legacy and unity of the Adrian people. Let every eligible elector attend and fulfill their duty to the Exilic Duchy, as mandated by the Dumageddon Doctrine, and the enduring spirit of Adrian Dumacracy. HIS LORDSHIP, Mateusz of the House Sarkozic, Regent of the Adrians, Count of Aldersberg

☩ At the edge of Castle Aldersberg, Mateusz stood in quiet contemplation, his eyes scanning the small town nestled below. The distant glow of lanterns flickered in the twilight, yet his gaze stretched beyond them, toward an uncertain horizon. He knew the path ahead would not be easy, but deep within, he understood it was necessary. Change was coming, and with it, the promise of something greater. Despite the unknown, he saw a glimmer of brightness in the future.

PROCLAMATION OF REGENCY. CONVENTUS ADRIAE. In the year 50 of the Age of Redemption and the Age of Resentment. ☩ BY THE FREE WILL OF THE DUMA AND THE ELECTED MANDATE OF THE EXILIC DUKE, THIS MISSIVE IS ISSUED IN THE SPIRIT OF A UNITED ADRIAN PEOPLE, GUIDED BY THE PRINCIPLES OF HONOR, DUTY, JUSTICE, LOYALTY, LIBERTY, AND WISDOM. THROUGH THIS COMMUNICATION, WE SHARE WITH YOU THE AFFAIRS AND STATECRAFT THAT SHAPE OUR FREE AND RESILIENT DUCHY. ‘LO UNTO THE ADRIANS, It is with a heavy heart and solemn duty that we must address the health of His Grace, Stefan Euler, Exilic Duke of the Adrians. His Grace has fallen gravely ill, rendering him unable to fulfill the functions entrusted to him by the Duma and the free will of the Adrians. In accordance with the statutes and principles of our Exilic Duchy, and under the counsel of the Duma, we hereby declare the establishment of a Regency to ensure the continuity of governance. By unanimous agreement and the mandate of the Duma, Mateusz Sarkozic, Count of Aldersberg and Chancellor of the Adrians, shall assume the duties and responsibilities of the Exilic Duke as Regent until such time as His Grace Stefan Euler regains his health and is able to resume his role. The Regency is established in service to the Exilic Duchy and its values. Regent Mateusz Sarkozic is entrusted to uphold the principles of our free and sovereign will, to safeguard the rights of the people, and to protect the integrity of our institutions. Let it be known that this decision, borne of necessity, is made with the deepest respect for His Grace Stefan Euler and the enduring unity of our Exilic Duchy. May all Adrians offer their prayers and support for the swift recovery of our Duke and the prosperity of our realm. HIS LORDSHIP, Mateusz of the House Sarkozic, Regent of the Adrians, Count of Aldersberg

By Pontifical Decree, this case is hereby transferred to the Office of the High Pontiff, to be adjudicated and ruled upon solely by His Holiness. In accordance with the provisions set forth in the Establishment of the High Court of Justice (2003), Chapter I: Of the High Court of Justice, Article 4(ii), this Court, operating under the authority of the Principal Justice, is expressly precluded under such circumstances from issuing any preliminary injunctions or imposing restrictions upon the parties involved. The jurisdiction and sole authority to adjudicate and resolve all matters pertaining to this case are vested exclusively in His Holiness. AUTHENTICATION AND SIGNATURE: His Excellency, Principal Justice of the High Court, Fr. Wenceslas Bainbridge.

This case has been adjudicated by the Court, and the ruling is accompanied by the attached documentation, which provides a detailed account of the reasoning and legal basis for the decision rendered.

This case has been adjudicated by the Court, and the ruling is accompanied by the attached documentation, which provides a detailed account of the reasoning and legal basis for the decision rendered.

This case has been dismissed by the Court in its entirety, pursuant to the granting of the Motion to Dismiss. The dismissal is issued in accordance with the reasoning and findings outlined in the following sections of this ruling.

This motion has been thoroughly reviewed by the Court and, upon due consideration of the applicable legal principles and arguments presented, has been granted in accordance with the detailed reasoning set forth herein.

Case HCI-002/12 SENTENTIA of the High Court of Justice 8th of Horen’s Calling, 2012 In Case HCI-002/12 Parties: • Prosecution: Bishop Alaric Valkonen; Ivan Cardinalis Lotharia. • Defense: Princeps Atticus Keen, et. al. Subject Matter: Whether the Pontifical Prosecution can lawfully pursue charges under Canon Law based on civil Directives of the Pontifical States; and whether those Directives can be applied retroactively to alleged acts of excessive force by Atticus Keen and his jurisdiction. Legal Context: Constitution of the Pontifical Territories, Articles IV, VII & IX. Codex of Ecclesiastical Laws, Book I: Application of Laws, Title I: Foundations of Law, Article 2. THE COURT: . . . composed of: W. Bainbridge, Principal Justice, L. Vuiller, E. Temmeck, E. Piñieda, and Y. Lion, Justices. Having regard to the written proceedings, the Court delivers the following judgment: BACKGROUND: 1. In response to events within the Pontifical Territories involving the alleged exertion of excessive force against elven individuals, the Pontifical Prosecution initiated proceedings before this Court against Atticus Keen and members under his regional jurisdiction. Subsequently, the party of Atticus Keen submitted a motion to dismiss the case. The Court has duly reviewed and considered said motion and has reached its determination. LEGAL ANALYSIS: Preliminary Observations: 2. The primary issues before this Court pertain to: (i) the scope of the Pontifical Prosecution’s authority; (ii) the applicability of the Directives of the Pontifical States under the framework of Canon Law; and (iii) the conformity of the charges with established ecclesiastical legal principles. 3. The Pontifical Prosecution’s claims rest upon two primary arguments: (a) alleged violations of the Directives of the Pontifical States; and (b) obligations of governance, particularly with respect to the conduct of Atticus Keen. The defense has argued that these Directives are civil in nature and lie outside the jurisdictional remit of Canon Law, further contending that their retroactive application in the present case is impermissible. 4. This Court is tasked with determining: (1) whether the Directives of the Pontifical States constitute a legitimate basis for charges under Canon Law; and (2) whether the Pontifical Prosecution has adhered to requisite procedural and substantive legal standards in bringing forth this case. Examination of Claims / Questions: a. Are the Directives of the Pontifical States enforceable under the Code of Canon Law? 5. This Court has carefully reviewed the jurisdictional and substantive nature of the Directives of the Pontifical States and finds as follows: These Directives are subsidiary laws promulgated under the Constitution of the Pontifical States, with the specific intent to regulate civil matters within the Territories of the Holy See. They are distinct from, and do not derive their authority from, the Code of Canon Law, which governs ecclesiastical and spiritual matters. 6. As such, these Directives cannot form a lawful basis for prosecution under the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts. The Pontifical Prosecution, as an ecclesiastical authority, is bound to the enforcement of Canon Law and is precluded from exercising jurisdiction over matters governed solely by civil directives. Consequently, the charges predicated upon these Directives are deemed invalid. b. Can the Directives be applied ex post facto in this case? 7. This Court refers to the principle enshrined in the Codex of Ecclesiastical Laws, Book I: Application of Laws, Title I: Foundations of Law, Paragraph 2, which unequivocally provides: “Laws provide for the future only, unless expressly provided.” This principle explicitly prohibits the retroactive application of laws absent express authorization. 8. The Directives invoked by the Pontifical Prosecution were promulgated subsequent to the alleged incidents. Any attempt to apply them retroactively would contravene foundational principles of ecclesiastical law. Accordingly, this Court concludes that the Directives cannot lawfully be applied ex post facto. c. What is the appropriate recourse for claims regarding Atticus Keen’s alleged negligence in fulfilling feudal obligations? 9. Claims alleging negligence in the fulfillment of feudal obligations fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the civil law governing the Pontifical States. The Constitution of the Pontifical States provides a framework for addressing such claims through civil litigation. The Premier of the Pontifical States, or their authorized representative, retains the authority to initiate such proceedings under applicable civil laws. 10. While the Pontifical Prosecutors may serve as legal counsel in these civil proceedings, their role must be confined to representation and must not extend to prosecutorial functions. This delineation ensures the distinction between civil and ecclesiastical authority is maintained. d. Are there grounds for prosecuting the alleged offenses under Canon Law? 11. The Court affirms that Atticus Keen and other relevant individuals may be subject to prosecution if their actions are shown to contravene provisions of the Code of Canon Law. However, the Pontifical Prosecution bears the burden of demonstrating the applicability of specific Canon Law provisions to substantiate such charges. Future proceedings must adhere rigorously to the jurisdictional and procedural requirements established under Canon Law. OPERATIVE PART: 12. Having reviewed the evidence, testimony, and applicable provisions of Canon law, the Court issue its ruling on the questions presented. As regards the motion to dismiss 13. The motion to dismiss is hereby granted in full. The Court finds that the charges brought by the Pontifical Prosecution lack a valid legal basis under the Code of Canon Law. Accordingly, the case Church of the Canon v. Keen, et al. is declared null and void. As regards the jurisdiction of directives 14. The Court holds that the Directives of the Pontifical States are civil laws governed by the Constitution of the Pontifical States and fall outside the jurisdiction of Canon Law. As such, they cannot serve as a basis for ecclesiastical prosecution. As regards the prohibition of ex post facto application 15. The retroactive application of the Directives is impermissible, as it contravenes the principles enshrined in the Codex of Ecclesiastical Laws. Such application is explicitly prohibited. As regards civil litigation recourse 16. Allegations of negligence in fulfilling feudal duties may be pursued through civil litigation initiated by the Premier of the Pontifical States or their authorized representatives. Pontifical Prosecutors may act as legal counsel but must refrain from performing prosecutorial functions in such matters. As regards future prosecutions under Canon Law 17. The Pontifical Prosecution retains the authority to pursue charges against Atticus Keen or other relevant individuals if substantiated under applicable provisions of the Code of Canon Law. All such charges must conform to ecclesiastical legal principles and procedural mandates. As regards procedural rule amendments 18. To ensure clarity and uniformity in future proceedings, the Court directs that Chapter II of the Praecepta Procedendi shall be amended to formalize the procedures governing the submission, opposition, and adjudication of motions before this Court. AUTHENTICATION AND SIGNATURES: Holy Chamber of Inquisition Their Excellencies, Principal Justice of the High Court, Fr. Wenceslas Bainbridge, Justice of the High Court, Elim Cardinalis Esbec, Justice of the High Court, Lord Ledicort Vuiller.

THE PRAECEPTA PROCEDENDI; OR, RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE CHURCH OF THE CANON; AS FIRST PENNED, COMPILED AND PUBLISHED BY: HIS EXCELLENCY, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT, FR. WENCESLAS BAINBRIDGE; BY THE AUTHORITY OF: THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE CHURCH OF THE CANON. CONTENTS CHAPTER I. ー General Provisions RULE I. ー Authority and Jurisdiction RULE II. ー Composition of the Court RULE III. ー Confidentiality of Proceedings CHAPTER II. ー Initiation of Proceedings RULE I. ー Submission of Petitions RULE II. ー Preliminary Review RULE III. ー Summons and Notifications CHAPTER III. ー Conduct of Hearings RULE I. ー Order of Proceedings RULE II. ー Decorum RULE III. ー Evidence CHAPTER IV. ー Sententiae and Appeals RULE I. ー Deliberations RULE II. ー Issuance of Sententiae RULE III. ー Publication of Sententiae CHAPTER V. ー Special Provisions RULE I. ー Civil Disputes RULE II. ー Decretas RULE III. ー Amendment of Rules CHAPTER VI. ー Final Provisions RULE I. ー Compliance CHAPTER I. GENERAL PROVISIONS RULE I. ー AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION ART. 1. The High Court of Justice exercises supreme judicial authority within the Church of the Canon, including the interpretation and application of Canon Law, adjudication of ecclesiastical disputes, and oversight of civil disputes within the Pontifical States. ART. 2. All proceedings before the High Court shall adhere to Canon Law, the Constitution of the Pontifical States, and these Rules of Procedure. RULE II. ー COMPOSITION OF THE COURT ART. 1. The High Court shall convene with an uneven number of Justices, as determined by the High Pontiff, with no fewer than three present for any ruling. ART. 2. The Principal Justice shall preside over all sessions of the Court. In the absence of the Principal Justice, the most senior Justice present shall assume the role of principal pro tempore. RULE III. ー CONFIDENTIALITY OF PROCEEDINGS ART. 1. All proceedings and deliberations of the High Court shall be conducted in strict confidentiality unless explicitly authorized for publication by the Principal Justice or the High Pontiff. ART. 2. Breach of confidentiality by any party involved in the proceedings shall result in disciplinary action. CHAPTER II. INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS RULE I. ー SUBMISSION OF PETITIONS ART. 1. Cases brought before the High Court shall begin with the submission of a formal petition. Petitions must: i. Clearly state the facts of the case; ii. Identify the parties involved; iii. Include any supporting evidence or documentation; iv. And, specify the relief sought. ART. 2. Petitions may be submitted by any subject of Canon law with standing in the matter. RULE II. ー PRELIMINARY REVIEW ART. 1. The Principal Justice or an assigned Justice shall conduct a preliminary review of all petitions to determine their admissibility. ART. 2. A petition may be dismissed if it: i. Lacks sufficient evidence; ii. Falls outside the jurisdiction of the High Court; iii. Or, is frivolous or malicious in nature. ART. 3. Petitioners shall be notified in writing of the decision on admissibility within 2 years of submission. RULE III. ー SUMMONS AND NOTIFICATIONS ART. 1. Upon acceptance of a case, the High Court shall issue summons to all involved parties, specifying the time and place of the hearing. ART. 2. All parties are required to appear or submit written statements if physical presence is not feasible. CHAPTER III. CONDUCT OF HEARINGS RULE I. ー ORDER OF PROCEEDINGS ART. 1. Hearings shall proceed as follows: i. Opening prayer and invocation of God’s guidance; ii. Reading of the petition and summary of the case; iii. Presentation of evidence and arguments by the petitioner, limited to 20 (OOC) minutes; iv. Presentation of evidence and arguments by the respondent, limited to 20 (OOC) minutes; v. Examination of witnesses (if applicable), limited to 10 (OOC) minutes per witness; vi. Cross-examination of witnesses (if applicable), limited to 10 (OOC) minutes per witness; vii. Rebuttals by each party, limited to 5 (OOC) minutes each; viii. And, conclusion of the hearing or adjournment for further deliberation. ART. 2. The presiding Justice may extend or shorten these time limits in extraordinary circumstances, provided it is deemed necessary for the fair adjudication of the case. RULE II. ー DECORUM ART. 1. All participants in the hearings must adhere to strict decorum, showing respect to the Court and its proceedings. ART. 2. Disruptive behavior shall result in removal from the Court and potential penalties. RULE III. ー EVIDENCE ART. 1. All evidence presented to the High Court must be relevant, material, and in compliance with Canon Law. ART. 2. The Justices have the discretion to admit, reject, or request additional evidence. CHAPTER IV. SENTENTIAE AND APPEALS RULE I. ー DELIBERATIONS ART. 1. Deliberations of the High Court shall be conducted in private. ART. 2. Decisions shall be reached by a majority vote of the Justices present. RULE II. ー ISSUANCE OF SENTENTIAE ART. 1. Sententiae of the High Court shall be drafted by one Justice, typically the presiding Justice or a Justice designated by the presiding Justice. ART. 2. The drafted Sententiae must be signed by a majority of the Justices participating in the case to become final and binding. ART. 3. Sententiae must include: i. A summary of the case; ii. Findings of fact; iii. Applications of Canon Law; iv. And, the final ruling or sentence. ART. 4. Sententiae shall be binding upon all parties, with no further appeal except by petition to the High Pontiff. RULE III. ー PUBLICATION OF SENTENTIAE ART. 1. Sententiae of the High Court shall be published for the instruction of the faithful and the legal community, ensuring transparency and accountability in ecclesiastical justice. ART. 2. Publication may only be withheld under exceptional circumstances, such as matters involving sensitive information, the protection of individuals, or issues of national or ecclesiastical security. ART. 3. Decisions to withhold publication must be approved by the High Pontiff and accompanied by a written explanation. CHAPTER V. SPECIAL PROVISIONS RULE I. ー CIVIL DISPUTES ART. 1. The High Court shall hear civil disputes within the Pontifical States when: i. No Regional Court exists in the jurisdiction; ii. The case is appealed from a Regional Court; iii. Or, the case involves issues of Canon Law. RULE II. ー DECRETAS ART. 1. The High Court may issue non-binding decretas on matters of Canon Law or Church governance when requested by the High Pontiff or other ecclesiastical authorities. RULE III. ー AMENDMENT OF RULES ART. 1. These Rules of Procedure may be amended by decree of the High Pontiff or by a majority vote of the High Court. CHAPTER VI. FINAL PROVISIONS RULE I. ー COMPLIANCE ART. 1. All subjects of law appearing before the High Court shall comply with these Rules of Procedure. ART. 2. Failure to comply with these rules may result in penalties, including fines, excommunication, or other disciplinary measures as appropriate.

ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS AND CEASEFIRE BY THE AUTHORITY OF: THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE CHURCH OF THE CANON COMPOSED BY: THE RIGHT REVEREND, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT, FR. WENCESLAS BAINBRIDGE; CONJOINED BY: HIS EMINENCE, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT, ELIM CARDINAL ESBEC; & HIS LORDSHIP, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT, LORD LEDICORT VUILLER. Atticus Keen, Princeps of Ivoria ( @HeyitsNano ) Lorelei Alstion-Enswerp, Countess of Enswerp ( @annanicole__ ) 1. In response to the call by Atticus Keen, Princeps of Ivoria, for intervention by the former Office of the Auditor, this High Court of Justice has stepped forward to fulfill its sacred duty. As the Office of the Auditor has since been disbanded and its functions reestablished under the purview of this Court; the Court now assumes full authority to address the grievances and discord between the parties herein named. 2. By the sacred authority vested in the High Court of Justice of the Church of the Canon, and in reverence to the Creator’s divine will, we issue this combined decree to restore peace among the faithful and summon both parties to answer before this holy court. 3. The Creator’s justice calls for unity, and His Church must act to resolve the grievous conflict between Atticus Keen, Princeps of Ivoria, and Lorelei Alstion-Enswerp, Countess of Enswerp. Therefore, this Court declares an immediate cessation of hostilities and commands your appearance to address and resolve this strife in accordance with Canonist law. ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS 4. You are hereby summoned to appear before the High Court of Justice on a date discussed amongst the relevant parties, and this Court, to address the grievances that have fueled this discord. 5. The proceedings will take place in the Holy Chamber of Adjudication within the Grand Basilica of the Apostolic City, a site consecrated for the Creator’s justice. 6. Both parties are expected to conduct themselves with dignity and reverence. Any display of hostility or contempt within this sacred court will not be tolerated and will be met with immediate sanction. ISSUANCE OF CEASEFIRE 7. From this moment forward, all acts of war, violence, and aggression between the House of Keen and the County of Enswerp are to cease without delay. Any party found violating this issuance will be judged not only in the courts of men but also before the eyes of the Creator Himself. 8. Both parties are strictly prohibited from undertaking any actions that might inflame tensions, including but not limited to: (1) Armed engagements; (2) sieges or blockades; (3) threats, provocations or publishing public material; (4) and, harm or intimidation of civilians. 9. Let it be known that this decree is not a suggestion but a sacred mandate. The Creator’s justice shall not be mocked, and His peace must prevail. We call upon both parties to lay down their arms and turn their hearts toward reconciliation, lest they incur the wrath of the Creator and the judgment of His Church. FINAL REMARKS 10. This combined decree is issued in the name of the Creator, whose justice and peace must prevail. The eyes of the Church and the faithful are upon you. Heed this call, for failure to comply will bring the gravest spiritual and temporal consequences, including excommunication, denunciation, and the loss of Canonist protections. 11. Let it be known that the Creator’s Church seeks not vengeance, but resolution and harmony among His children. Lay down your arms, prepare your hearts, and stand before this Court to fulfill your duty to the Creator and His divine law. 12. May the Creator’s light guide you toward truth, peace, and reconciliation.