Talk:Vilatte orders

See main disccussion
For discussion about split, please see

Short research report on the sovereignty claims of the so-called Abbey-Principality of San Luigi
san-luigi.org

This religious order claims they achieved the full right of sovereignty over a few acres or less on the continent of Africa for a period of about one year ending in 1844 after which they were forced to depart. The major problem with this erroneous claim is it is in direct violation of international law, because it was on someone else’s lawful territory. This, in and of itself, makes their claim illegal and therefore invalid. To illustrate and perceive how flawed this claim is – the idea of holding sovereignty within another nation’s territory -- all one needs to do is extend this irrational idea to its logical conclusion. That is, if the Catholic Church could set up tiny abbeys and monasteries all over the earth and declare them to be independent sovereignties, we could conceivably have, instead of about 150 nations, 50,000 little countries all over the earth. But then again, carrying this ridiculous theory further, the Orthodox Church and others could do the same thing and set up nation-states within the sovereign abbeys created by the Catholic Church on the same principle, because in this scenario, sovereignty means little or nothing, independence is a meaningless ideal. Such a theory eliminates sovereignty and supremacy altogether. It is to throw out all international sovereignty law. In other words, the idea behind their claim is without any validity or wholesome benefit to the nations of the earth, who are organized under the rule of sovereign independence as a central fundamental feature of the rule of internaitonal and domestic law. The point is:

"No rule is clearer than the precept that no State [or other sovereign entity] may lawfully attempt to exercise [or hold valid] sovereignty within the territory of another."

'''"Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme political authority over a defined territory (land, airspace and certain maritime areas such as the territorial sea) and the people within that territory. No other State [or other entity like an abbey] can have formal political authority [sovereignty] within that State [or kingdom]." (emphasis added) '''

Only by the crime of usurpation could they exercise sovereignty authority on someone else’s land. Legally, the only way a usurper can gain lawful or true sovereignty over another's territory is after 50 to 100 years of uncontested, undisputed, public exercise of such. However, their claim was only for a little over one year. This is absolute proof that they never gained any kind of real or authentic sovereignty. If they did exercise authentic or genuine sovereignty in this populated desert land over their tiny property, it was in violation of the sovereignty of the rulers and the people who lived there. It was in full breach of the highest secular law on earth. Such a claim is not legal. It "gives them no right whatsoever."

You can’t disobey the only laws on earth that can create valid sovereignty and somehow magically obtain it some other way like a thief and a robber. Sovereignty, the highest secular right on earth, can only be achieved by obeying the laws that govern its birth and creation. Therefore, no person, no organization, no religious order or abbey, not even another sovereign nation, can lawfully assume any kind of legitimate or valid sovereign jurisdiction or rights in another country's territory without permission. This would be in direct defiance of international law.

The unfounded claim of this religious order was, according to their own writings, based on discovery of uninhabited land, or land inhabited by a nomadic people. One of the major problems with this is ". . . that territories inhabited by nomadic peoples living as ‘organized societies’ were not to be considered terra nullius [uninhabited] open to acquisition by occupation." The land which they claimed was already occupied for thousands of years by an ancient kingdom with a long history and succession of rulers and kings, who ultimately became free from the domination of three prior Empires: the Roman, Byzantine. The point is, the land of the Fezzan was not terra nullius or empty of people. The Tuareg land had seven major confederations. Each ruled over by a supreme Chief called "Amenokal" who governed with a counsel of elders from each tribe. There were actually more people subsisting in this land under their own sovereign indigenous governments than there are now in modern times. They possessed the land having over 35 towns and 100 villages and were supreme in the use of their own laws and judgments. The government is monarchial; but its power are administered with such regard to the happiness of the people, the rights of property so revered, the taxes so moderate, and justice, directed by such a firm, yet temperate hand that the people are ardently attaché to their sovereign.

Having sovereignty, no one could come into their land like a foreign Catholic Abbey in Moslem territory and establish a new little country in their midst without their full permission and authorization. This would be a violation, or blatant breach, of their territorial integrity – a fundamental rule of international law. The point: The Abbey was nothing more than an Abbey, which only lasted less than one year before they were entirely removed by the people of the land who had rejected them.

The people and the kingdoms that existed in this area were composed of a much larger population in the 19th century than now live upon the land. The reason this Catholic religious order took residence in this place was because this land was occupied. If there was not much potential for people to be converted to Christianity, it would never have been founded there. The idea that this land was terra nullius or empty of an organized people was historically inaccurate. This fact alone invalidates their claim – a claim that is historically unsupportable.

They claim that the Catholic Church recognized them as sovereign, but admit that no proof exists to substantiate this. The problem here is that recognition does not create sovereignty. ". . . Sovereignty is neither created by recognition nor destroyed by nonrecognition." Recognition simply cannot make something false into something true. You can't make the world flat, just because the nations of the earth may have recognized it as such at one point in time. Neither the Catholic Church nor any other sovereign entity has the legal right to create internal sovereignty over someone else’s land. No one can legally do this.

In addition, in international law, if there is no proof that something occurred, it becomes nothing more than pie in the sky or a nice sounding fairy tale.

It is true that there was such a religious order that owned some property there in Africa at the time, but this does not magically transform them or anyone else into a supreme free and independant nation or principality, especially without the support of the only laws on earth that can produce the genuine sovereign right to rule.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.19.194 (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did read The abbey principality in international law. I believe it is very neutral to think that when about a dozen men go into a foreign country and claim to be sovereign and rule over the inhabitants is equivalent to thinking that a sports team drinking in a pub and agreeing they like the pub and the neighborhood decide that it is now their own with no regard for the pub owner or the neighbors. When the outraged neighbors chase the team out, the team knows they are not wanted and the pub is not theirs – regardless of what they tell their mates at the next pub they drink at.
 * --BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Shameful article
I am sorry to say that this article is really unfair, biased and written only under a roman catholic view. It is a breach in the neutrality of Wikipedia. It seems that this article is just an accusation, not a fair information providing a neutral point of view.

The Valensi affair is too long and has over 100 years ! This part of history has more than probably nothing to do with the current orders.

I think the authors should have read this http://san-luigi.org/chivalry/the-san-luigi-orders/history-of-the-order-of-the-crown-of-thorns/ and may be tried to have updated information and data's, not those published in pro-roman catholics newspapers of the early 20th Century.

This is a shame !

--SpartakusFreeMann (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you SpartakusFreeMann for reading the Vilatte Orders article. I believe your accusation that the Vilatte Orders article is not neutral is unfounded. Yes, I am Catholic. Are you implying that a Catholic cannot write a neutral article? I did write a neutral article about the various groups which René Vilatte is connected with.


 * I did read History of the order of the crown of thorns and found nothing written about the Valensi affair but did find the website used |an excerpt from the La Croix article which I cited which in fact is the diploma that Vilatte was accused of peddling. It is something that was known and is known but just not written about. If there is more about these groups please add it.
 * --BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Valensi affair
This is not a fair information as the sources are mainly antimasonic papers. There is absolutely no proof that Mgr. Vilatte was engaged in any of traffic, except in some far-right roman catholic papers. --SpartakusFreeMann (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The content in dispute from Valensi affair section is:

And also this is infamous and libel to flag these orders in "scam" !

--SpartakusFreeMann (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to determine what are "antimasonic papers", there was criminal activity – people were tried and convicted.


 * Marie Timothée of the Principality of San Luigi was implicated in connection to |the diploma that is found and recognized on the San Luigi website. Vilatte stated that the story discredited him by incorrectly identifying him as the signatory Marie Timothée of the Principality of San Luigi. You misunderstand what I wrote. The organized crime conglomerate that was involved in the Valensi affair was behind the diploma in question, not Vilatte. Again, I believe that Vilatte was truthful and was not Marie Timothée of the Principality of San Luigi. If there is more about who Marie Timothée of the Principality of San Luigi was please add it.
 * --BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is not neutral and its content is against the Wikipedia charter
Please do not erase my changes, there is no vandalism, I am just amazed to see the sources of this articles are mainly far-right French ranti-masonic papers.

I am also surprised to see the page on René Vilatte. It is biased and not neutral as well.

I ask a moderator to intervene.

I do not make any litigation threat, I do not reprensent San Luigi, I was just pointing out that the article is diffamatory.

If this is against Wikipedia to try to shed some lights on this article then ban me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpartakusFreeMann (talk • contribs) 09:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is not defamatory. I am in fact defending René Vilatte by including his statement that the story discredited him by incorrectly identifying him as the signatory Marie Timothée of the Principality of San Luigi. Again, |the diploma is recognized on the San Luigi website. Are you writing that [san-luigi.org] is not a reliable source?
 * --BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Valensi affair
This affair has absolutely nothing to do with the Order of the Lion. Where are the legal proofs of the assertions published here ?

Mgr. Vilatte never met Valensi. Where are the proofs he did ?

Again, this article is just the charge of a roman catholic point of view against a Religious current that is not willing to recognize the rule of their pope. Nothing less, nothing more.

--Spartakus FreeMann 12:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpartakusFreeMann (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, the Order of the Lion and the Black Cross is a focus of the Valensi affair. I don't understand what you mean by "the legal proofs of the assertions published here". You misunderstand what I wrote. I believe Vilatte. Vilatte wrote that he never met Valensi – that is one of the points that Vilatte made when he refuted a connection to |the Order of the Lion and the Black Cross diploma which is found and recognized on the San Luigi website. Again, I believe that Vilatte was truthful and was not Marie Timothée of the Principality of San Luigi. I don't understand how believing Vilatte is "a roman catholic point of view against a Religious current that is not willing to recognize the rule of their pope".
 * --BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, then I misunderstood, but citing Gayr as a source for somebody who claimed himself to be a "strasserian" guy is dubious, don't you think? Moreover, you are not clear in the accusations you post against Vilate, Order of Thorn... Well, it you and your conscience. Nothing to add, I don't want to lose time here, as it is obvious the discussion is biased. For your information, when writing an article, the references are first checked. Action française, Pujo, Gayr, all these are more than doubtful. And useless to give a link to a picture placed on abbey sans louigi site, it means nothing. Out of context. --Spartakus FreeMann 21:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpartakusFreeMann (talk • contribs)


 * Hmmm? You are right, there is no context anymore it now just an example of negationist revision. The existance of Marie Timothée of the Principality of San Luigi is being removed from the san-luigi.org website and placed into the memory hole. The "Historic documents" page changed in the last few days and the live link labeled "Reproduction of a brevet [...]" is now removed. There was context to the image.
 * --BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Mukungu of the 1883 foundation story
I read more about the Mukungu on the san-luigi.org as SpartakusFreeMann suggested "to have updated information". First of all, neither orderofthecrownofthorns.org nor ccrcc.ca mention a Mukungu as does san-luigi.org.

Although the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda states that "a traditional leader or cultural leader shall not have or exercise any administrative, legislative or executive powers of Government or local government," the claim that "the Abbey-Principality entered into treaty relations with the Bunyoro-Kitara Kingdom" is made on the san-luigi.org website; the supporting links on that page link internally to several notices, which look like press releases, by an esquire, on behalf of the Omukama of Bunyoro, Solomon Iguru I,  but not one external link to an act by Iguru. At least one of the notices can be found on another website, The domain name bunyoro-kitara.org is registered to the Abbey-Principality of San Luigi's 1st Duke of Ghãt in Germany,  but again just a notice not an actual documented act by Iguru. The website bunyoro-kitara.org is easily confused with the website arkbk-clbg.org, which is, according to the European Union Transparency Register, the website of a private corporation, the Association of the Representatives of the Kingdom of Bunyoro-Kitara Worldwide Limited, and not a government. arkbk-clbg.org website also displays an image of its CSONet.org registered profile record for Civil Society Organizations seeking status granted by the United Nations; but according to that same registered profile record: the group lists both bunyoro-kitara.org and arkbk-clbg.org as websites in the profile; it has no accreditation or affiliation; has no consultative status with United Nations Economic and Social Council; and has not participated in any meetings. Curiously not one .UG top level domain name in the group. and curiously not one actual image of an act purportedly signed by Iguru of which examples can be found elsewhere online. Does any of this seem authentic?

As this is claimed to be done on behalf of Iguru, who is WP:ALIVE, are these WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims because they seem to contradict the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda? The "Bunyoro Kitara Kingdom" is the name of a "Traditional Cultural Institution" with a domain name of bunyoro-kitara.com, according to the Republic of Uganda's Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development, in 2009. But in 2014 that domain name is parked. The website bunyorokingdom.org states it is the "Bunyoro Kitara Kingdom Official Website". I cannot determine what is a genuine website representing the Bunyoro Kitara Kingdom. I visited some sites found in a but I am not sure about what I am really looking at.

What I read on san-luigi.org is internally inconsistent. For example, as Mukungu is not a "Title of Nobility" but a "Royal Title by the royal prerogative" found in "oral tradition and cultural tradition" which is hereditary and is "inherited in the male line", the first hypothetical Mukungu, Mendoza, must also be the last in this case because one cannot logically transfer something intangible which is "inherited in the male line" to somebody else through a document – without sex there is no biological link and the hereditary title becomes extinct. So even if there was a hypothetical Mukungu, Mendoza, he could not transfer his hereditary title to Girardot nor could Girardot absurdly transfer Mendoza's hereditary title to Vilatte. It is preposterous and completely refutable. It is, above all, an insult to the Banyoro people and their culture to reduce an intangible hereditary right granted by Omukama Yohana Kabalega Cwa into a type of economic resource bartered like cultural chattel by Europeans like Girardot. As "retroactive changes of the past are not allowed" and "oral tradition and the cultural tradition never are rewritten" even to "to accommodate western standards", something hereditary cannot change into something non-hereditary. So, it was irrational and meaningless for Girardot to claim to have been a second Mukungu and an unqualified sham for Lyman to claim to have been a fifth Mukungu, without a genetic link to the presupposed Mendoza. But again, the source for the quotes "retroactive changes of the past are not allowed" and "oral tradition and the cultural tradition never are rewritten" is claimed to be on behalf of Iguru. So what does it mean to have "renewed the title of Mukungu"?

--BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

San-luigi.org example of freemen on the land or sovereign citizens?
There seem to be parallels between a freemen on the land or sovereign citizen movement and the network of entities (I use these words because the entities don't self-describe what they are, in concrete language, or how they relate, in concrete language, to other entities in these networks) described on san-luigi.org.

I don't understand what differences, if any other than geographic location, there are between freemen on the land or sovereign citizens so I'll combine the two on this talk page. These people, freemen on the land or sovereign citizens, are considered "to be domestic extremists" by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, an example described, in The Economist, is a tenant who "refused to pay his rent. But then, said his landlady, he declared that he was a 'Freeman-on-the-Land'; that the house was now the First Nations Embassy of Earth; and that she no longer had any rights to it." Freemen on the land types of doctrines were described in detail by Associate Chief Justice John Rooke of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta in the decision of Meads v Meads as an "organized pseudo-legal commercial argument" (OPCA), a term coined by Rooke in Meads v Meads. "Sovereign citizens are anti-government extremists," according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, "who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or 'sovereign' from the United States." They impersonate diplomats; "use fake currency, passports, license plates, and driver's licenses"; and engineer "white-collar scams". According to Barry Sautman, in Maryland Series in Contemporary Asian Studies, "pseudo-states issue passports, currency, and stamps, yet the items have no validity under international law." For example documents such as passports are sold by the Embassy of Heaven. "Adherents of the sovereign citizen movement believe," according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, "that they — not judges, juries, law enforcement or elected officials — get to decide which laws to obey and which to ignore, and they don't think they should have to pay taxes." A shows articles related to this movement and sovereign citizen beliefs. Daryl Johnson wrote, in Right-Wing Resurgence, that individuals wanted "to renounce their U.S. citizenship; form their own governments, court system, or territory; and secede entirely from the United States." Johnson lists three sovereign citizen groups claiming "bogus territories": Republic of Texas, Christ County Kingdom of God, and Justus Township. Confrontations at the Montana Freemen's Justus Township, near Jordan, Montana, included an exchange of gunfire with law enforcement during a 1996 standoff.

San-Luigi.org also describes a "Royal Protector of the Regency of Lomar" – "The Regency of Lomar is fundamentally a small sovereign, non-territorial, non-profit, transnational diplomatic and humanitarian institution, or non-government organization (NGO)." Even after reading what I think is a introductory capsulization, I don't know what this is. It was associated with a diploma mill, Akamai University, Hawaii, which is listed by the State of Texas as conferring "fraudulent or substandard degrees" which are illegal to use in Texas.

A "Republic of Lomar" article was deleted from Wikipedia in 2009.

The Republic of Lomar was located "in Sub-Saharan Africa where we are trying to obtain a sovereign enclave" and "on the Internet, as a non-territorial (virtual) micronation". The United States Department of State identified the Republic of Lomar, in 1999 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, as a fraudulent offshore financial center. In 2000, Ian MacLeod wrote that the Republic of Lomar "claims to be the world's largest micronation" and "Lomarian passports have already been used to enter Cuba and Russia" according to one of the founders. The Republic of Lomar was "trying to establish a positioning that is similar to a normal sovereign state." If the Republic of Lomar passport was eventually recognized, one of the founders, Laurent Cleenewerck, said, holders could "actually enjoy some benefits from this dual citizenship" for instance "having the ability to use the passport for travel" as a "sort of a camouflage passport" for personal safety in place of "a U.S. one" for example. "Lomar documents can be used as 'camouflage documents' [...] to disclaim your other citizenship" and "the Lomar passport as a camouflage passport is very effective, perfectly legal and our program is much cheaper than other 'traditional' camouflage passports" according to the republic-of-lomar.org website. "Occasionally, a pseudo-state will issue a passport that manages to get a visa from unwitting or corrupt officials of a state." According to Sautman, "these items have no validity under international law." Sautman explained that, "issuance of the visas was clearly ultra vires &mdash; beyond the powers of these governments vested in low-level consular or immigration officials who, through mistake or corruption, issued the visas." For example, because this "document does not have the character of a travel document issued by state authorities" the Embassy of France in Pakistan confiscated a "diplomatic passport" issued by the Republic of Lomar from "a citizen of the Republic of Pakistan" who presented it to gain a French visa. A French court ordered, in 2003, that the document was not to be returned because the "title is also likely to create confusion". It was described in 2001 as "the internet fraud called Lomar Republic".

"A high proportion of micronations have tax evasion and the bending of their birth nations' rules at heart," according to Shehara Samarasinghe, in The Sunday Leader, micronations are used "as smokescreens, behind which one can break the law."

To me, the claims of monasteries with sovereignty within the borders of countries, Valensi, diplomats, passports, stamps, coins, etc. looks different when seen together.

Should "Abbey-Principality of San Luigi" be a separate article? Only one of the three Vilatte orders groups, the san-luig.org group, makes these claims. Is this what the 1883 foundation story was – a freemen on the land or sovereign citizens pseuohistory?

--BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Monastery of the 1883 foundation story
The monastery of the 1883 foundation story is not a Catholic understanding of the concepts. Monks do not elect a prince; monks elect an abbot. The 1883 foundation story conflates two pairs of things: The word pairs, abbey-principality and prince-abbot blur the distinctions. Regardless, it is self-evident that any hypothetical abbey-principality must be both an abbey and a principality, likewise, any hypothetical prince-abbot must be both a prince and an abbot.
 * the office of an abbot with the office of a prince
 * the community of a monastery governed by canon law with the community of a principality governed by civil law

Above, in "Short research report on the sovereignty claims of the so-called Abbey-Principality of San Luigi", 74.211.19.194 wrote about the sovereignty assertion – which is an aspect of the principality and aspects of the prince. Here are some assertions found on san-luigi.org and my comments about aspects of the abbey and aspects of the abbot:


 * "a group of French and Spanish Roman Catholic Benedictine monks" who were "members of the Benedictine Order".
 * They were Roman Catholic.
 * They were "members of the Benedictine Order"; the Order of Saint Benedict explicitly live by the discipline of the Rule of Benedict (RB), and so they observed RB and led a consecrated life; they were not sarabaites.
 * They were a group so it reasonable to believe they could have been a community.
 * They were monks who were professed religious and not oblates.
 * They lived by the discipline of RB and so they professed a solemn vow of obedience, conversion, and stability; and lived the three evangelical counsels.


 * possibly some "had been associated with the former Benedictine Abbey at Ligugé"
 * This is a red herring fallacy – because monks who are separated from their professed monastery continue to live by the discipline of RB and have not broken their professed a solemn vow of stability. Their origin does not matter only that they were professed monks within the Vicariate Apostolic of Sahara at the time.


 * "a relationship between the Abbey-Principality and the Holy See inherent in the office of prince-abbot [...] was comparable to a fiefdom."
 * This is a strawman fallacy – because this statement presupposes a nonexistent feudal system part of a Roman Catholic Church (RCC) apostolic vicariate – there was no "office of prince-abbot" in an apostolic vicariate; the monastery was not "comparable to a fiefdom" in any way because there was no 1880s European feudal system within the Ottoman Empire. There was a neither a feudatory nor a manorial system.
 * This is a strawman fallacy – because this statement also presupposes a nonexistent "office of prince-abbot" in an apostolic vicariate; the monastery was not a principality within the Ottoman Empire. There was no vassalage. These were not the types of things and relationships that existed in 1880s in an apostolic vicariate like the Vicariate Apostolic of Sahara in which Ghadames was located. The rights of the cloister were restored by the Council of Trent. The monks were within the structure of the RCC governed by canon law, everything the RCC believes and teaches, and RB. They were also governed by a superior and followed the rule prescribed by their respective order. The canonical erection of their monastery required:
 * permission of the Holy See
 * assent of the local bishop acquainted with the local conditions, local people, and local established religious orders
 * provision for the sustenance of twelve religious, otherwise they must live under the jurisdiction of the ordinary


 * "the role of the Holy See was limited to purely religious matters, since the monks [...] would have been subject both to Catholic canon law and the Rule of St. Benedict,"
 * This is a bifurcation fallacy – because precepts such as RB must conform to canon law and everything the RCC believes and teaches.


 * "the Holy See therefore did not impinge upon the sovereign prerogatives of the Prince-Abbot."
 * This is a strawman fallacy – because there was no "office of prince-abbot" in an apostolic vicariate there were no attached "sovereign prerogatives" from the Holy See.


 * "Benedictines did not at that time have any central body that acted as co-ordinator, each abbey or monastery being independent and autonomous."
 * This is a bifurcation fallacy – because precepts such as RB must conform to canon law and everything the RCC believes and teaches regardless of an organizational structure.


 * "By virtue of the Constitution, the Prince-Abbot possessed the right of appointment of his successor"
 * There was no "office of prince-abbot" in an apostolic vicariate. Regardless, the community's constitution must conform to the RB and canon law and everything the RCC believes and teaches. Kardong explains RB 64 in complete detail. RB 1980.  The appointment of an abbot contradicts RB 64.1 which requires the election of the abbot. It states that "let this always be observed as a rule, that he be placed in the position whom the whole community with one consent, [...] shall elect." Abbots are elected for life by the professed members of a community not appointed by a predecessor. "To be eligible he [the candidate] must have all the qualifications required by the canons of the Church." "It is furthermore necessary that he [the candidate] should be a priest, a professed member of the order, [...]" Kardong explains that ordination is not required by RB but is a church discipline so "for centuries" the RCC "has refused to confirm an election of anyone but a priest."  "The election, to be valid, must be held in the manner prescribed by the common law of the Church [...], and as determined in the statutes or constitutions of each congregation."


 * "appointment to the office of the Prince-Abbot was not subject to the approval of the Pope"
 * This is a strawman fallacy – because there was no "office of prince-abbot" in an apostolic vicariate there was no approval of a non-existant office. It is also irrelevant since precepts such as RB must conform to canon law and everything the RCC believes and teaches. "Exempt abbeys under the immediate jurisdiction of the Pope must, within the space of a month, apply to the Holy See for a confirmation of the election; non-exempt houses, within three months, to the bishop of the diocese." The monastery must have been either an exempt or non-exempt monastery.


 * "There is no evidence that such an appointment was required to be ratified by the Holy See"
 * This is a strawman fallacy conceptually linked to the previous strawman fallacy – because appointments are a violation of RB 64 and invalid there would be an intervention by the ordinary and not a ratification by the ordinary or the Holy See. It is also irrelevant since precepts such as RB must conform to canon law and everything the RCC believes and teaches. "Exempt abbeys under the immediate jurisdiction of the Pope must, within the space of a month, apply to the Holy See for a confirmation of the election; non-exempt houses, within three months, to the bishop of the diocese."


 * "that right was twice exercised during 1884 upon the death of successive Prince-Abbots"
 * These invalid appointments were in violation of RB 64.1 which requires that the election of an abbot. In RB 64.4, the bishop is "asked to intervene in the case of an improper abbatial election."   According to RB, the bishop of the diocese or the abbots or Christians in the area are to block and not permit this.  The cancellation of an election is an obviously improper which requires their ordinary's intervention to correct. If there was a hypothetical validly elected and confirmed abbot, Henrice Pacomez, he was the last legitimate abbot (which is different than a nonexistent "office of prince-abbot").


 * "the Abbey-Principality is not tied to a specific territory in order to exercise its prerogatives"
 * As mentioned above, this statement presupposes a nonexistent feudal system part of a RCC apostolic vicariate which invests these unspecified rights in either a monastic community or their abbot.
 * This is a strawman fallacy – because there was no "office of prince-abbot" in an apostolic vicariate there was no such person to exercise any attached prerogatives regardless of where such person later moved to. It is also irrelevant since precepts such as RB must conform to canon law and everything the RCC believes and teaches.


 * "alongside [...] prerogatives [...] derive[d] from [...] territory"
 * Either, as mentioned above, this statement presupposes a nonexistent feudal system part of a RCC apostolic vicariate or presupposes a location within Ghadames was


 * "there are [... prerogatives] inherent in its position as an independent theocracy"
 * This is a strawman fallacy – because a monastery is neither independent nor a theocracy there are no attached prerogatives. Precepts such as RB must conform to canon law and everything the RCC believes and teaches. A theocracy is a type of government; a monastery is not a government. A monastery conforms to civil law and has no authority over civil law.


 * "José Mendoza appointed Louis-François [...] Girardot "his successor [... in] 1896, resigning [... in] 1897"
 * As above, this invalid appointment was in violation of RB 64. As I wrote above, it is self-evident that any hypothetical prince-abbot must be both a prince and an abbot. The presupposed Pacomez was the last hypothetical legitimate abbot. One cannot be a prince-abbot without being a validly elected and confirmed abbot. It is nonsensical for an unelected abbot to appointment a successor to the elected office which he was not elected to.


 * In "1899, in a ceremony before [... Clairet, Girardot] transferred all his titles to [...] Vilatte"
 * As above, this invalid appointment was in violation of RB 64. As I wrote above, it is self-evident that any hypothetical prince-abbot must be both a prince and an abbot. The presupposed Pacomez was the last hypothetical legitimate abbot. One cannot be a prince-abbot without being a validly elected and confirmed abbot.


 * "the appointment legalized before the Mayor [...] Eugène Clairet [...] and two witnesses",
 * This is a red herring fallacy – because the act of any civil servant does not change the conclusion that one cannot be a prince-abbot without being a validly elected and confirmed abbot. A civil servant cannot change an office which is elected by a community of monks and confirmed by their local bishop into something which is neither elected nor confirmed.


 * "legalization by a French government official established the recognition of the Abbey-Principality by the French state" and "recognition by the French government followed when the two transfers of the office of Prince-Abbot were legalized before the Mayor [... Clairet] in 1897 and 1899 respectively."
 * On san-luigi.org, the concept "legalization" is only an ambiguous claim. The Oxford English Dictionary Online (OEDO) shows three senses, which are: "To make legal or conformable to law; to invest with the authority of law; to authorize, justify, sanction."
 * On san-luigi.org, the concept "recognition" is only an ambiguous claim. It is not specific like diplomatic recognition or legal recognition. There are, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "as much as 23 different usages of the notion 'to recognize'." The OEDO also shows several senses, which include among others, a range from "acknowledgement conveying approval or sanction" to "admission, confession, or declaration" to "the mental process of identifying something that has been known before".
 * This is a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy – because the act of legalization does not cause the act of recognition.
 * This is an appeal to authority fallacy – because the legal authority a local civil servant can assert is not the legal authority a central government can assert. It is an ultra vires act.
 * An ambiguous claim of legalization is not the same as an ambiguous claim of recognition. They are not the same.
 * Even disregarding the premises that there was no "office of prince-abbot" in an apostolic vicariate, a person cannot transfer a hypothetical "office of prince-abbot" to another person because any hypothetical prince-abbot must be both a prince and an abbot, who in turn must be validly elected by his monastic community and confirmed by his ordinary.

It is self-evident that a man cannot be a hypothetical prince-abbot without being a validly elected and confirmed abbot. If there was a hypothetical elected and confirmed abbot, Pacomez as is asserted on san-luigi.org, he was the last legitimate abbot.

Even disregarding the premises that there was no "office of prince-abbot" in an apostolic vicariate and there was no 1880s European feudal system within the Ottoman Empire and there was no feudal system part of an apostolic vicariate, there could not have been a hypothetical prince-abbot after the presupposed Pacomez because there was no validly elected and confirmed abbot after him in the 1883 foundation story. All successors who were not validly elected and confirmed abbot would have received ecclesiastical punishment from the ordinary which entailed that a hypothetical prince-abbot would have been suspended as a prince. For example, Fritz Kern wrote, in Kingship and law in the Middle Ages, that "it was clear that ecclesiastical punishment of the individual entailed disqualification of his duties as prince. His capacity for rule was suspended, and only after the performance of penance which the Church imposed was the prince able to regain this capacity to rule." This happened to Louis the Pious. To repeat, there was no "office of prince-abbot" in an apostolic vicariate, but if there were, there could only have been one holder of the office.

--BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)