Civil jurisdiction does not somehow vanish due to criminality being legislated. Evil laws do not bind, as they do not exist ontologically. They can use as much paper and ink as they want; an evil law is not a law. But the magistrates of the State nevertheless retain their legitimate power, and they must be obeyed in all things lawful.

Coups d'état are never permitted, as they are assaults on legitimate authority to the end of usurping it.

I am not sure what you mean by "divine authority". There is the spiritual power and the civil power, both descending from God, which are distinct powers, but not necessarily separated. The Pope of Rome, for example, is both the visible head of the Church and the temporal monarch of the Vatican.

The world is in great need of restoring the principle of sacral monarchy, by which kings were annointed religiously by the clergy. It does not bestow spiritual, that is, ecclesiastical authority upon them, but the Church sacralises the temporal authority by impressing this religious character upon it, giving a sublime expression of the true harmony that must exist between the two powers, extirpating the erroneous beliefs regarding the relationship between the Church and the State in the collective mind of the populations.

Regarding your question about supporting the State or a potential Mahometan regime overthrowing it: I would defend the State, for it is written that we must honour our father and mother. This Commandment does not restrict itself to obedience due to our natural parents, but extends itself to all our legitimate superiours, ecclesiastical and civil.

That said, do not delude yourself about the Mahometans. They are satanical perverts drunk with the blood of saints and prophets.

Civil jurisdiction does not somehow vanish due to criminality being legislated. Evil laws do not bind, as they do not exist ontologically. They can use as much paper and ink as they want; an evil law is not a law. But the magistrates of the State nevertheless retain their legitimate power, and they must be obeyed in all things lawful.

I agree that one cannot just ignore all civil law because the State has promulgated evil law, and that they are the de facto rulers still, but is it true that they are the legitimate authority after promulgating a civil law which is against both divine and natural law? Can they not still retain their de facto jurisdiction while losing their right to rule in the sense of no longer being able to rightfully suppress an ιnѕυrrєcтισn that would repeal their evil law?

Coups d'état are never permitted, as they are assaults on legitimate authority to the end of usurping it.

This assumes that a civil authority always remains legitimate regardless of its acts. For example, if the State instituted child sacrifice would a coup still be illegitimate? Would it not be the case that by promoting such an evil institution, the State would thereby have lost all legitimacy in its claim to govern men? Is it not the case that gαy marriage, or abortion, are such evils that by promoting them the State can be said to have lost its right to govern men?

Regarding your question about supporting the State or a potential Mahometan regime overthrowing it: I would defend the State, for it is written that we must honour our father and mother. This Commandment does not restrict itself to obedience due to our natural parents, but extends itself to all our legitimate superiours, ecclesiastical and civil.

Say you live in a country ruled by an anti-Catholic power, that actively persecutes Catholics, forbids their religion, and puts them to death wherever they are discovered; say that the Pope supports a Catholic revolutionary in the country who wishes to overthrow the anti-Catholic regime and institute a pro-Catholic one - would you still defend the anti-Catholic regime?

Any government which exercises de facto authority is entitled to the respect due to that authority. They thus have the duty (and right) as the ones in power, to do the things that must be done, for the running of the country. They can collect taxes, maintain the roads, regulate trade, defend the borders, etc, all for the common good.

I agree. I don't mean to say that the State, by allowing gαy marriage, immediately loses all authority, and that the country is plunged into a state of anarchy. I merely mean to say that now, having allowed such an evil, the violent overthrow of the State would be a legitimate act on the grounds that it would suppress such an evil.

On the other hand, in the US, even though our government is technically "revolutionary," there is no popular and military support for a real counter-revolution, and so such a war would not be a real war, but an ιnѕυrrєcтισn, which everyone would justly condemn as "domestic terrorism."

I agree with your reasoning in general here, but what if someone wanted to violently overthrow the US government not necessarily to form a Catholic government, but to suppress gαy marriage, abortion, and whatever was against natural/divine law? Even though it may not have popular support, does not divine and natural law trump the rights of the people? Again, to use an extreme example: say a group of revolutionaries in the Aztec Empire recognised that human sacrifice was against divine and natural law, and tried to overthrow the government on those grounds - would that be an illegitimate act of ιnѕυrrєcтισn if the popular sentiment was that human sacrifice should continue and the current rulers ought to stay in power?

Brutus conspired in the assassination of Julius Caesar on far less convincing grounds, in my opinion, yet people still debate whether or not his action was justified. Julius Caesar was accepted by the people, but Brutus and his co-conspirators called him a tyrant and therefore someone who could be legitimately deposed. Now if it is reasonable for a man like Brutus (and a man like Cicero also) to come to that conclusion, or to at least entertain the idea of it, then is it not reasonable for us to at least entertain the idea that our governments have lost the right to rule by promoting such evils, and therefore could be legitimately deposed? Note: I am not right now advocating for revolution, this is an academic question for the time being. What matters more to me is the matter of right, whether the government now has a right to rule, more than how to overthrow government.

States that support the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ agenda also supports all other acts of
perversion.  They also have the most abortions. They become degenerate
cesspools with very high crime rates. These rulers are very pro Israel and
send their children of the nation to fight and die in unjust wars in the middle east.
In a generation these states will be ruled by the immigrants and the migrants
and false religion of Islam, and they will destroy all that was Christian and decent that remains.
This is the way God will punish the sins of these global minded people whom
abandoned the true religion and became evil.