Saturday, September 11, 2021

New Encyclical on Peaceful Resistance to Evil

By Jean DuBois

FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 11 September 2021 (NRom)

Today a new encyclical was released that discussed the issue of those in power who force their will on others around the world. The concept of peaceful, nonviolent non-cooperation was proposed as the appropriate Christian response during this current time in history. The complete text of the encyclical follows:

Those in worldly power, whether in government, companies, or institutions, who seek to dictate and force their will upon others ultimately cannot do so in the long run without the cooperation of those whom they wish to dominate. Without that cooperation, those in power become powerless. Indeed, peaceful, nonviolent non-cooperation can be more powerful than the sword.

Neither popular vote nor absolute power by itself determines what is right and just. Also, policies are not inherently in public best interest simply because they are proclaimed. Frequently the stated goal of public interest is nothing more than a mask for self interests. History provides plenty of examples of public interest, public benefit, and even public health being exploited as justifications for the most horrendous acts against human dignity.

The Church fathers have, through the ages, been quite clear on the rights of individuals not to follow dictates that are against the laws of God; to be free to follow their own conscience through the help of God, the intercession of the saints, and the guidance of the Holy Church; and ultimately to enjoy freedom that can only come through Christ. The Holy Church has, through her history, consistently fought in various ways in favour of the poor, the downtrodden, and the oppressed. In the world today, it is no surprise that we find yet another iteration and another variation of the selfsame story that plays out in every generation in the history of mankind.

Today We profess that the best course of action and course of resistance against those in the world who would unjustly dictate and force their will on others is peaceful, nonviolent non-cooperation. The small number of those in leadership roles in government, industry, schools, and institutions cannot force the masses of people to do their will without the cooperation of the people. Through fear and intimidation, and through mechanisms such as peer pressure and self-conscious insecurity, efforts to control and dictate may be successful for a time, but it cannot stand in the long run without cooperation. Indeed, a peaceful, nonviolent army of the righteous ultimately must be victorious.

This We teach solemnly as shepherd of the faithful. This We proclaim as the duty of all. This We state is the truth for which we must stand. It is in part for this purpose that the Church of Christ on earth is and must remain a completely sovereign entity, above all civil states. In this peaceful, nonviolent non-cooperation with evil, domination, and injustice, by the help of God and the intercession of Saints Peter, Mark, and Stephen, We will suffer any peril or threat before We relinquish Our Apostolic Office or allow Our sacred oath to be violated. This course of action likewise is the right and duty of the baptismal oath of each and every one of the faithful. May Almighty God in the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Blessed Michael the Archangel, and all the saints be with each of you now and forever.

Tuesday, September 7, 2021

Archfather Writes On Human Kindness


FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 7 September 2021 (NRom)

Patriarchal Letter of His Holiness and Eminence
Papa Rutherford I
on Human Kindness

7 September 2021

Laudetur Jesus Christus!

We have hopefully all been taught the Golden Rule that we should do unto others as we would have others do unto us. History, though, shows that this spirit of Christian brotherhood, responsibility, and kindness has not yet penetrated the hearts of mankind in the almost 2000 years since the Incarnation.

The lesson of how we should treat others has not been learned on a wide scale thoughout history, especially by those in positions of authority. The world today is no different, as we see horrid examples of people mistreating their fellow man, even behaving in ways that they surely would not like to receive if the tables were turned. Politicians and those in positions of power in industry and institutions likewise have forgotten to follow the Golden Rule – or else they are intentionally disregarding it.

Some have said that this poor behaviour by politicians is simply what they must do as a matter of political expediency. However, We wholeheartedly reject that as an excuse, for to accept it would be to tolerate and be complicit in some of the worst behaviour of humanity throughout our collective history to the present. Acknowledging that politicians act in their political best interests or those in, for example, the corporate world act in their own financial interests or those of their stockholders may perhaps be a true realisation, but it is also irrelevant to the question of moral correctness and eternal truth. The choices we face in life are very often not easy, but they are invariably simple. We can choose to do the right thing, or we can choose to do the wrong thing. Very often, if not most of the time, the right thing is set aside by those in power and even by individuals because it is not the easy or popular thing to do. The decisions we face in life are important enough for individuals in general, but they become extraordinarily more important for those in positions of power and authority. The responsibility of people in power, whether in government, industry, or other institutions, to do the right thing, even if it is not easy, popular, profitable or politically expedient, is, again, dramatically higher due to the probable further reach of the consequences of their actions. That is not, of course, to say that the actions of individuals do not influence others, either positively or negatively, but simply a realisation that the decisions of those in positions of power and influence normally have wider ranging impact, either good or bad.

A recent discovery in the Ukraine of a mass grave filled with thousands of bodies from Stalin’s Great Purge underscores where power unchecked by righteous and moral responsibility can lead. Stalin in fact is estimated to have killed more of his own people than Hitler’s forces ever did in the Holocaust against the Jews, Slavs, and Catholics. It is a stark and poignant example of a complete abdication of the responsibility of a leader towards the people in his care. Yet, so many of the worst leaders in history claimed to be doing the right thing for the public good and public benefit, demanding total obedience and total agreement. Their actions, however, tell a different story – a story in violation of the Golden Rule.

The world of today is replete with examples of those in power treating others as they would surely not wish to be treated. Expediency cannot excuse it. The same is true of individuals in general. It might be said that such examples are not on the same level as the extremes of Stalin or Hitler, and while that is feasibly true, it does not change the impurity of underlying intent. One cannot excuse an ethical treatment of others by saying that it is nothing compared to the acts of others such as Stalin or Hitler. It is the same darkness behind both. When we realise this as individuals, we can begin to change our own behaviour towards others. When we realise this as a society, we will demand that governments, corporations, and institutions change the way that they treat their citizens, employees, clients, and others. Indeed, when we realise this as a society, we will no longer tolerate mistreatment, but our own treatment of others necessarily will improve. Let us each seek to allow Christ to into our hearts that we may live the Golden Rule and, leading by example, promote it in others.

Sunday, August 22, 2021

The Origins of the National Anthem

By Jean DuBois

FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 22 August 2021 (NRom)

The national anthem of the Stato Pontificio (Pontifical States, as distinct from the modern Vatican City-State) is the Gran Marcia Trionfale. It was written by Viktorin Hallmayer, the band director of the 47th Austrian Infantry Regiment of the Line, also known as the Count Kinsky Regiment. It was stationed within the Pontifical States in the 19th century and helped to defend the Church against outside threats, including the Italian unification movement.

The anthem was written in 1857 for Pope Saint Pius IX as a celebration of his entry into Bologna. As a result of its popularity, it came to be played when he entered other cities and even returned to Rome.

The anthem is often referred to as waltz-like, even though it is not in waltz 3/4 time, due to its style. Today the Vatican City-State uses a different tune as its national anthem, the Marche Pontificale, by Charles Gounod. The Hallmayer Gran Marcia Trionfale remains the national anthem of the titular Pontifical States today, which also commissioned its own special arrangement of the music. A video of the national anthem is below.



Saturday, August 21, 2021

The World is Traveling a Dangerous Path


FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 21 August 2021 (NRom)


Encyclical on decisions being made by government and industry leaders around the world

Carissimi,

The world is traveling along a dangerous path, guided by many troubling decisions and policies by government and industry leaders around the world, fueled by popular determination. Those decisions and policies are not led by God, but instead are induced by widespread public panic and other considerations that do not take into account the totality of public good. Indeed that very panic and fear was partly grown by government and other entities at the beginning of the pandemic, and partly was fueled by them like pouring gasoline on a bonfire. Earlier examples of leadership in both government and industry in previous pandemics did not stoke fear and impose such draconian restrictions on individual liberty, fueling a divided population and hatred very rarely seen – and with arguably no worse results in outcome. The degree of restrictions imposed, as well as already-underway mandates for essentially forced vaccination are, We are bound by Our teaching office to say, shortsighted. Such policies fail to take into account the potential long-term consequences of such actions, which can be very broad and diverse in scope. It appears the goal is to limit institutional liability and placate the panicked portion of the population (for indeed the entirety of the world population is not content to live in fear). However, We must caution against such actions, for they place the focus too narrowly and fail to take into account the totality of cost, both short-term and long-term, to both institutions and individuals. It saddens Us, though, for this is to be expected. Throughout the pandemic, government and many institutions around the world have consistently disregarded the true public good and the rights and benefits of individuals. The totality of health must not be pushed to the side to focus on one disease. The totality of public good likewise must not be trampled underfoot or put out of mind.

True public good is that which is defined by God, not by man. In democratic societies, such as those found across Europe and the Americas, good inevitably is defined for purposes of policy by popular vote – that is, it is defined by the people. Yet Christian people know better than this. Christian people know that what is good and what is bad cannot be determined by popular vote. If the leaders of a democratic nation, elected by majority vote, chooses a path that is wrong, the fact that they are supported by a majority does not, in the eyes of God, render that wrong decision to be right. Likewise, if the leaders of a nation or an institution are petitioned by vocal members of their constituents to take certain actions and travel down a particular path, the legitimacy of those actions are not determined by their popularity. Yet it is the clamoring voice of the majority that typically determines what elected leaders will do in a democratic society. Even if it is a determined minority that is pushing a certain action, it is in fact the will of the majority if the majority remains silent and does not oppose. Silence is a vote. Then, what is determined to be right in the eyes of the people is forced upon everyone, even quite often if it goes against their conscience, and even if it is truly wrong in the eyes of God. True freedom can never exist in a society that believes what is good and what is right may be determined by popular vote.

Today’s society believes itself so superior to previous societies, which it often considers oppressive and authoritarian. Yet, We see no true difference. It matters not the title of an office in government, but rather it matters what they do. Oppression and tyranny can easily happen, no matter the form of government. Oppression of the people by a tyrannical king is no different than oppression of the people by an elected official or by an angry mob.

It is Our duty to express this, Our sincerely-held religious belief that the world is traveling down an extremely dangerous path. This journey is led by government and industry leaders, but it is also the responsibility of popular determination. God controls life, not man, and humanity would do well to remember that rather than behaving with such hubris as it does now. Where this will end, we as mere humans cannot know. Let us all pray, though, that peace and freedom in Christ will prevail. This path is dangerous for the world, but so too it seems that speaking out in the love of Christ against the world going down this path is dangerous, for love of one’s fellow man is likewise a victim of the pandemic. May all Christians, then, receive Our Apostolic blessing to speak the truth of the Christian faith and proclaim the love of God in all things.

Tuesday, August 17, 2021

Chief of the General Staff on Afghanistan


FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 17 August 2021 (NRom)

The following is the perspective of First Marshal of the Pontifical States HIRH the Prince of Würzburg, Chief of the General Staff of the Pontifical Walsingham Guard on the situation in Afghanistan. 

As a combat veteran I can honestly say that we keep entering countries with good intentions but without full situational cultural and tactical awareness; without intelligent, realistic and achievable exit plans that do not ebb and flow according to the politics of the parties in power. 

We were not officially engaged there in peacekeeping nor nation building, although that was pretty much the defacto status quo.

I am not at all certain why we were still there. But I do know the consequences of not being there.

It certainly is a Vietnam Deja’ Vou all over again, (and again) to bail out as we have done, looking out for #1.

Sure, blame whomever you wish, but understand the cultural/religious and military/political realities. 

Fact is, we’ve never had the WW2 stereotype welcome we’ve expected anywhere we put boots on the ground since the Nazi era “good war”.

Yes, we do make friends, help people, train them and provide jobs and hope…for a while.

Yes, we had minimal troops there and few injuries and no fatalities for more than a year.

However, honorable people do not quietly depart in the dead of night.  Honorable people adequately assess the historical notion of a true orderly and efficient retrograde; they establish, coordinate, and communicate ground rules, protect our friends and support our allies with an eye on the long term goal (?) rather than the very short lived political “victory” claim of bringing troops home.  Honorable people make a positive difference, they hug their friends and wave farewell in the public light.

Fact is, I’m still waiting to see the Peace Dividend promised by President Clinton when we closed so many bases in Europe and the US.  All we seem to have done is to put more funds and faith in firepower than in the people who pull the triggers.

Fact is, we indeed cannot continue to spend trillions of our nation’s treasure—human and intrinsic—on fighting folly.  We should get in and out as soon as possible or not enter, ever, at all.

One simply doesn’t put boots on the ground if you don’t intend to win, because history should have taught us that wars are won by the one who is most willing to wipe the other fellow off the face of the Earth. No matter what it takes, from Napalm to Public Opinion.

There simply is no pacifist way to win a gunfight.

That said, nations are not built by the Peace Corps; it takes a nation of winners, not whining wimps focused on what passes for the de jure flavor of the day’s cancelled culture.

Tell that to the fellow who believed our myths, who lived up to our ideals, and gave his/her/et al’s limbs or life in the process, while Bubba back home complains about his wages,  working in air-conditioned splendor. Meanwhile, waves of immigrants are desperately seeking his low paid job simply to live in relative paradise.

Consider for a moment how much we ask of our soldiers.

Ponder how little we understand.

e have met the enemy—again, and again, it is us.

Monday, August 16, 2021

Chaos in Afghanistan - Papa Rutherford I Gives Official Statement

FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 16 August 2021 (NRom) 

Statement on the Current Situation in Afghanistan
Rutherford Pp. I

We stand in shocked horror at the events unfolding now in Afghanistan. We call on the people of the world to pray for those suffering in the confusion and destruction, for We know that death awaits many people at the hands of the Taliban. And, that death is likely to be a horrid, painful torture-death. We call on the governments of the world and on the United States to intervene, not because We endorse outside interference in other nations in general, but because this nightmarish situation is the direct result of such outside interference. Those that created the situation have an absolute moral obligation to fix it. 

     Instead, it appears that the United States has washed its hands of the mess that it created, leaving the people of Afghanistan to suffer greatly for it. Yet, American military doctrine says that military action should be kept “over there.” Thus it becomes very easy in practical terms for Americans to abandon others to their fate.

     The United States claims to be the land of the free and home of the brave, but their own government has long behaved as if it were the land of the tyrants and the home of the cowards. No Christian can morally justify the abandonment of Afghanistan under the present set of circumstances. The blood of every person who dies as a result in Afghanistan is on the hands of the American government and the American people. It is a sin crying out to heaven for vengeance by Almighty God!


Saturday, August 14, 2021

Archfather Comments on Current Societal Situation – New Encyclical


By A. DiNardo

FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 14 August 2021 (NRom)

His Holiness and Eminence the Archfather released a new encyclical addressing different pressing issues challenging society now. These include social infrastructure, healthcare, government and institutions, and more. The Archfather wrote that so many people have squared off against each other in harmful ways during the present debates. He called for everyone to display kindness and empathy during these difficult times and urged cautious restraint in policy decisions. His Holiness also wrote that religion and authentic science are not incompatible. He also expressed significant concern that apparent agendas may be clouding judgment and causing more suffering and confusion. The encyclical ended with an assertion that society must look to God to know what is right. The full text of the encyclical is given below.


_______________________

Encyclical “The Present Societal Conditions”
Within the Octave of Saint Lawrence the Deacon and Martyr

Carissimi, the present societal conditions of the pandemic have exposed some of the darkest aspects of human nature. Modern society in its hubris thinks itself to have progressed so much from earlier eras in world history, yet again and again whenever humanity thinks thusly, it proves itself to be no different and no better. While technology and various aspects of life may change, the hearts of man remain constant, stubbornly refusing to love others in the example of Christ.

During this pandemic we have seen an intense breakdown in social infrastructure; we have seen winners and losers be chosen by government decree; we have seen many people with other diseases not receive proper treatment because society acts as if the current pandemic’s disease is the only one that matters; and we have seen the rights of countless individuals and even the sovereignty and rights of Holy Mother the Church trampled underfoot.

Indeed, we have seen countless acts of man’s inhumanity to man, as people choose sides in the various pandemic-related debates and are often willing not only simply not to listen to those on the other side, but to do harm of various types to those who do not think the same. That harm has taken the form of verbal abuse, employment-related damage, financial damage, and even physical assault. Truly society shows itself to have the same dreadful base instincts that it pretends it does not have but has always had.

Also during this pandemic we have seen the darkness of those who seek to control others, even on a large scale. There are those of what is arguably an oligarchy – major businesses and banks that exercise a tremendous amount of direct or indirect political influence – who have profited and are continuing to profit immensely from the conditions imposed by governments during the pandemic. The head of one such company is apparently now poised to become the world’s first personal trillionaire – an amount of money that no individual needs. We see open calls for what has been termed the “great reset,” a complete reordering of society dictated by the virus, not by the doctrine of faith that underlies society. The great technology that has improved so many aspects of life and has even multiplied the ability of Holy Mother the Church to exercise Her earthly ministry ironically has not only enabled fear and panic to spread at a lightning pace over a vast geographical area, but also enabled control mechanisms to be employed much more quickly and efficiently on a wide scale.

The attempt to exercise such control, no matter the stated reason, is nothing more than the arrogance of mankind seeking to play God. Mankind, having turned its back on its Creator, seeks to control that which cannot be controlled. Ultimately such attempts must fail in time, but that does not prevent them from doing massive amounts of harm to others and to society in the process.

Health and even public health must be balanced against other important considerations. Fear and panic must not govern. Groupthink must not drive decision-making, for right is right, even if no one is right, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is wrong. Government leaders and even individuals must not put on blinders and focus only on one issue. Issues must not be solved with a short-term mentality. Faith must be put in God and in God alone. Mankind in its arrogance must not think itself to be equal to God and attempt to control, for it will fall in the process.

At the centre of the debate now is the widespread presence of vaccine mandates in many countries around the world – a trend that no doubt will grow. In Italy, for example, the so-called Green Pass, a document that proves one has been vaccinated against COVID-19, has been mandated to go to a growing list of public places. This has turned many business owners effectively into policeman, which is problematic. It also restricts those who have not been vaccinated from a normal life – apparently potentially even from going to the grocery store. It has even been said that those who are unvaccinated should remain effectively under house arrest. Many churches in Italy are banning those who are unvaccinated, even going so far as to say they are unwelcome. In fact, Our Roman brother the Bishop of Rome is imposed the same restriction on the Vatican City-State, including the Basilica of St. Peter, the very church of the Prince of the Apostles of whom in humility We are temporal successor. Truly We cannot imagine St. Peter or any of our other most holy predecessors making such an abhorrent decision. Certainly We expect they would have been prudent, but not slam shut the doors of the church to any group of people, for the church is for everyone – especially those who are suffering and who are ill. We Ourselves have blessed the sick and the suffering in the Basilica of St. Peter and in St. Peter’s Square within Our city of Rome. That Our brother the Bishop of Rome would impose such a policy is unthinkable to Us. That any of Our brother priests would impose such a policy is likewise unthinkable to Us.

These are not the only such restrictions, though. In some places like the United States, where government mandates, particularly at a federal level, are difficult or impossible, mandates are still going into effect. Rather than being imposed by government, they are imposed by private institutions and employers. In some cases, the choice given is either to get the vaccine or not to work in a particular company, which can easily have career and financial implications. In other cases, employment without the vaccine may still be continued, but there are significant penalties and restrictions imposed.

Such restrictions do not allow for choice of conscience, either, for a significant penalty placed upon a given preferred choice is not in fact real and free choice. Such restrictions and mandates also failed to take into account the many other factors beyond the current issue of the pandemic.

These mandates also bring to the forefront the aforementioned issue of widespread control in the arrogance of mankind. Humanity with all of its technology and all of its scientific advancement has widely abandoned God and sought to replace religion with a vapid humanistic form of scientific philosophy to guide life. This is both sad and ironic since religion and science are not incompatible. Indeed, authentic science is nothing more than an explanation in human language of God’s universe and the way He created it to function. That science progresses and builds on prior knowledge, even sometimes finding that earlier ideas were incorrect, is a result of the vastness of the mind of God, which humanity is incapable of knowing in its entirety. That science is a complex process over time, and new knowledge may demonstrate that old ideas and scientific thought were incorrect should give any rational person pause when serious decisions are made by government and industry that can have wide-reaching, dramatic consequences based on rapidly changing data and science. That a variety of political and other agendas are intertwined with scientific research should give further pause. Many times it is better to exercise prudent and cautious restraint.

Now, We must reiterate that We in general are in favour of vaccines and encourage those who wish to take them to do so, with proper consultation with their own physicians. Yet, in charity we must all be kind and respect those who have hesitancy to take any given vaccine or who refuse them all together – even if we vehemently disagree with the reasons. There are in fact, however, many valid reasons for which some people choose not to take a given vaccine. For example, no Catholic may rightly take a vaccine that is made directly with aborted fetal tissue under any circumstances. We have already spoken on this given Our direction on the matter, including which of the present vaccines are morally acceptable. Others may have medical reasons by which they may not take a vaccine. Yet in the present zeal to vaccinate one and all, exceptions are being challenged – even those who object on religious grounds. Again, a desired choice that comes with a negative consequence is not a free choice at all.

It seems that society is using a stick and honey approach, which should give rational people of faith even more pause. First came the encouragement campaigns, with even some local governments paying people to get vaccines. Then there were certain discretionary recreational activities that some cases required vaccines. Educational campaigns were launched, and various public figures used their popularity to promote getting the vaccine. That was the so-called honey – which failed to produce the results that government perhaps the population wanted. Now has come the stick. Around the world those who fail to comply, even if they have what they believe is a valid reason for not wanting to get the vaccine, suffer often serious consequences. That should give yet again pause to any rational person of faith.

We must therefore insist and encourage caution and rational restraint in mandates, whether they are for vaccines in the present pandemic or for anything else determined by anyone to be, in their opinion, in the best interests of society. One need only look to history to know where this can lead and where it has led. Even if the present vaccine campaign were to be itself positive or at least benign in impact, the precedent it sets to force anything on anyone, even if it goes against their conscience or own determination about what is best for them, sets a dangerous precedent that is quite concerning. It is not that long ago that forced sterilization in the United States was a common practice, for example. That, too, was deemed to be in the best interest of society. And, any society that allows the wholesale murder of millions of unborn children cannot claim that it is making policies in the best interests of society, of health, and of life.

Once again, We commend and applaud all of Our brother clerics and all healthcare workers and others who seek to improve and save life on earth, for the right to life is the most fundamental of all rights – the right upon which all other rights are necessarily dependent. Yet society must not seek to play God, arrogantly attempting to control. Matters of health must be balanced against other factors. We must be skeptical of any policy that seeks, directly or indirectly, to force people to violate their conscience, no matter the real or stated good intentions of that policy. What is good is not defined by government or by popular vote or by an angry mob. It is God and God alone that determines what is good. We look to science to know what to do, it will be to no avail if we do not simultaneously look to God to know what is right.


Friday, August 6, 2021

In Memoriam Charles Daniel Johnson (II), Count di S. Croce


The Pontifical Court announces the death of His Excellency d. Charles Daniel II Johnson, Count of Santa Croce in the Holy Roman Empire and Hereditary Deputy Grand Master of the Order of the Eagle of Saint Stephen and Mary Immaculate on Ferretruria, 3 August 2021. The late Count was cousin of His Holiness and Eminence Papa Rutherford I. The Count was a professional educator with over 41 years of service and a lifelong record of community engagement. He was particularly noted for helping children. Among his many talents was riding the unicycle – a skill that he was always happy to teach to others. He is succeeded in his titles and offices in the Stato Pontificio by his eldest son, His Excellency Count d. Charles Daniel III. He is survived by his wife, Her Excellency d. Rebecca and his other two children, the Countess d. Jennifer and the Count d. Andrew.
Coat of Arms of the
Counts di S. Croce




Wednesday, August 4, 2021

95 Theses against Traditionis Custode

WINSTON-SALEM 4 August 2021 (NRom)

95 Theses against Traditionis Custode

Archbishop William Jones

In the Name of the Crucified and Risen Lord, Amen.

The issuance of the Document Traditionis Custodes has caused undue hardship and persecution within the catholic world. As an ecumenical observer of the circus that the Bishop of Rome has created in this machination, we have taken it upon ourselves to issue this correction of errors in Traditionis Custodes; and to call the Bishop of Rome to amendment of his attitudes against the most sacred traditions and history of the Christian faith.

1. In order to guard tradition, one must work with tradition, and not against it.

2. The bishop of Rome has the power to facilitate the liturgy of the church, but not to outlaw or otherwise ban the celebrations thereof.

3. True paternal concern for the souls under one’s care is best expressed by consulting them on such major decisions, rather than forcing them to submit as though they were slaves like the children of Israel under Pharoah.

4. The liturgical books promulgated by Pope Paul VI may express the Lex Orandi of the modern church, however Pope Francis’ welcoming of a pagan deity known as Pachamama into the sacred precincts of St. Peter’s clearly demonstrates the Lex Credindi of the same.

5. The demand of the Roman pontiff for all people to acknowledge his authority and magisterium before they may pray to God as did their ancestors, is repugnant to the spirit of Christ and the Holy Gospels.

6. The denial of permission for those attached to the Tridentine rite to worship in the same spaces as those who are attached to the post-conciliar liturgy is an abuse of authority, and presents a greater threat to the unity of the Catholic faith than the Latin Liturgy ever has.

7. There exists no precedent in church history for the bishops of the local diocese to be granted authority to deny the faithful access to the liturgy in an approved rite of the church.

8. Priests who currently administer the sacraments according to the pre-conciliar liturgy do not require the permission of the local ordinary in order so to do; as they are granted the authority and right so to do by the church’s own history and law.

9. The bishop of Rome does not hold the authority nor power to abrogate those customs and norms which he may find inconsistent with his own personal agenda; that power alone lies with the councils of the church.

10. The Bishop of Rome does not hold the authority nor the power to overturn the privileges and rites of the church and her ministers, especially those granted by the ecumenical and dogmatic councils; including Trent.

11. The claim that those clergy who celebrate the traditional liturgy are less pastoral than those who do not is based not on fact or evidences; but on personal conjecture of the Bishop of Rome and those who seek to enable the liberal agenda he espouses in his writings.

12. The establishment of groups dedicated to prayer is an abominable abuse of the supposed power of the Bishop of Rome; given that he holds no such right to do so. 

13. Demanding that priests who hold the right to celebrate the liturgy of the church obtain permission so they can continue to “enjoy this faculty” is less an encouragement of conformity; and more a damnable, draconian threat against the sacraments of the Church.

14. If the Bishop of Rome alone can impose or suppress the traditions of the church at whim, then neither the church nor its traditions are held sacred by the one who does so.

15. The wishes of the episcopate in regards to tradition may be important; but their importance is nothing compared to the faith of the people of God and the dignity of the Christian people as a whole.

16. The abuse of the conciliar documents to insinuate that the traditions of the church either began with the council or must be subject to the council is not only against the spirit of the conciliar documents themselves; but a flagrant violation of the sacred tradition of the church.

17. Denying the apostolic mandates and promulgated documents of the Bishop of Rome’s
sainted predecessors not only shows a clear and definite break with the traditions of the
church; but expresses a sense of devilish and selfish pride in the current occupant of Saint
Peter’s chair.

18. The Bishop Rome has demonstrated through this document that he is not only happy to
cast aside the works of previous councils and sainted pontiffs; but even to issue such a
public rebuke and correction of his own predecessor, who is still living.

19. The traditions of the church are not a plaything of the popes, and as such are meant to be
guarded lest the incumbent of the office decide he wishes to reform the church in his own
personal image and tastes.

20. It is not pre-conciliar traditions that are the greatest threat to the church in the modern
era; it is the spirit of post-conciliar pride which believes it alone is superior to all that has
passed, including councils and the apostles themselves.

21. The ‘desire for ecclesial communion’ expressed in Traditionis Custodes is a slap in the
face to those who observe the rites of the church in their traditional form; telling them
they must conform to the new because the bishop of Rome says they have to.

22. The Bishop of Rome has demonstrated that his pastoral concern is only for those who
think like himself, and/ or those who are outside the catholic faith and have no intention
of becoming catholic.

23. The restriction of the tridentine liturgy to strict scheduling and locations expresses less a
pastoral concern for the faithful; and more a prideful statement of believing that the
Bishop of Rome knows what is best for each individual’s spiritual care.

24. The concern of the Bishop of Rome that traditionalists challenge and deny his authority
is a flagrant falsehood; considering true, public, and direct challenges to that same
authority have streamed from the church in Germany for years on end.

25. If there is one church body within the Roman Communion who will cause schism in the
church over the presence of any sense of tradition, it is those who believe that the council
and only the council should be followed.

26. The granting of power to oversee the groups who desire traditional liturgy to the local
ordinaries has already garnered negative and anti-communal fruits; as bishops who claim
union with the successor of Peter kick out priests and communities who desire traditional
worship from their dioceses and churches.

27. The Bishop of Rome does not hold the authority to deny access to the approved liturgies
of Catholic Tradition.

28. The Bishop of Rome does not hold the right to deny the faithful from assembling and
building houses of worship for themselves and their spiritual care.

29. The Bishops of the Church do not hold the authority to deny priests the right to offer
sacraments in the approved rites of the church.

30. The Bishop of Rome demands absolute conformity to his prerogatives and personal
tastes; yet permits those who actively dissent to do as they please, so long as they use the
post-conciliar liturgy.

31. The bestowal of the power to dispose of parishes at whim to the local ordinaries is an
abuse of Papal authority, and repugnant to the word of God; both the written and Living.

32. The office of Bishop exists to further the work of Christ, and to provide for the faithful
entrusted to them; not to deny them the sacraments because it’s not what the bishop likes.

33. The command that the Motu Proprio must be observed regardless of pre-existing
permissions, dispensations, and rights- is an act of despotism, showing unity with the evil
one rather than the spirit of Christ.

34. The command that priests must obtain permission to offer the sacraments in their
traditional form is an abuse of the right of priests to minister to the people of God; in that
it denies the priest the very essence of what his ministry is- to bring the sacraments to
Christ’s own.

35. This Motu Proprio is not in accordance with the spirit of Christ in the Gospels, nor in
accordance with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

36. This Motu Proprio is based out of personal distaste for the pre-conciliar traditions of the
church; and is a public declaration of the Bishop of Rome’s own hatred rather than
paternal or pastoral care.

37. Traditionis Custodes is not in line with the initiatives of Benedict XVI; but rather a
public rebuke of the work done by him through Summorum Pontificum.

38. Traditionis Custodes expresses great concern for the wishes of the Bishops and
Congregation for the doctrine of the faith; yet holds no concern or interest in the wishes
of the Christian faithful.

39. Traditionis Custodes demonstrates the Bishop of Rome’s lack of concern for the wishes
and desires of the Christian people.

40. The Bishop of Rome holds no right to sit as judge of sacred tradition, only as its assistant.

41. To claim that the Bishop of Rome may judge “the experience” of tradition and decide to
suppress it is a direct violation of the Christian faith, and an offense against the councils
of the church.

42. The expressed desire to “search for ecclesial communion” is laughable, given the
expressed intent of denying the access of people to the sacraments of the church just
because it is in a traditional, approved rite.

43. If the Bishop of Rome may suppress approved liturgies of the church at whim, why does
he only obsess over the Latin Rite; and ignore entirely the other rites within the church
and also those constantly being innovated and changed within the post-conciliar rites?

44. The obsession of the Bishop of Rome with conformity to his machinations demonstrates
the same diabolical mindset which prompted the beginnings of schism and separation
within the church in 1054.

45. It is not the Bishops of the Church which are the visible expression of her unity, but their
common faith and prayer through Christ.

46. The absence of the name of Christ from Traditionis Custodes indicates not only a lack of
inspiration from the same; but a denial of His place in the life of his church.

47. If the Bishop of Rome feels need to admonish the clergy who observe the traditional
liturgy to be “more pastoral” than concerned with “correct celebration of the liturgy”,
then why does he not express the same concern to the papal household or the Cardinalate;
who leech off the people of God’s tithes and give nothing of value in return?

48. The statement “I have considered it appropriate” indicates that the motu proprio is
personally decreed, and given out of a personal distaste for tradition rather than genuine
pastoral concern for souls.

49. Given the reaction of the episcopate across multiple nations and continents to the
issuance of this document; it is clear and apparent to all that the bishops who were
consulted for its drafting were only those who already agreed beforehand with the Bishop
of Rome, and not those who represented any sliver of disagreement with the spirit of the
same.

50. The effects of the motu proprio are deeper and more troublesome than only the exterior
trappings of Latin vs. the vernacular.

51. Traditionis Custodes was issued without concern or regard for those who will be
economically affected by it.

52. Under Traditionis Custodes, bishops now have the right to close down the only parish in
poor communities, especially if they celebrate the traditional liturgy; thus depriving the
people not only of the right to worship, but of the sacraments of Holy Church.

53. This provision to allow the denial of sacraments at Episcopal Whim is an abuse of
authority of the office of Bishop, and a damnable offense against the dignity of the
Christian people and the Faith.

54. There are furthermore apostolates and family-owned businesses who provide vestments,
candles, and other sacred supplies for use in these parishes; who will be negatively
impacted by the absurdity of these provisions.

55. The lack of concern for those who give not only of their time, but of their finances and
other gifts to parishes where the Tridentine liturgy is offered; is an offensive denial of the
validity of the gifts offered by the people of God.

56. The Bishop of Rome expresses a desire that traditional communities be subjected to
Inquisition, to ensure they are in line with the “magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs”; yet
the current occupant of Saint Peter’s chair expresses by this document that he himself is
not in line with the magisterium of the church or his predecessors.

57. The demand that congregations and religious orders who observe tradition to be subject
to the commands of the Motu Proprio are a violation of the agreements and apostolic
mandates for their erection; which the occupant of Saint Peter’s chair has no authority to
overturn of his own accord.

58. The Bishop of Rome expresses a desire for Unity, but issues a document which divides
the people of God rather than uniting them.

59. The Bishop of Rome expresses a desire for conformity, yet undermines the unity of the
church by attacking those entrusted to his care.

60. The tone of Traditionis Custodes is less one of paternal care, and more that of sarcasm
and hatred that one sees in the political sphere.

61. The Bishop of Rome does not have the power or authority to abrogate Sacred Tradition.

62. The Bishop of Rome does not have the authority to deny the Catholic Faithful access to
the sacraments in their traditional form.

63. The 1986 commission of 9 Cardinals ordered by Pope John Paul II issued report of
findings that Bishops do not have the authority to impose restrictions on the celebration
of the Tridentine Rite, in public or in private.

64. Declaring the current Motu Proprio to be in the ‘spirit’ of Trent and Pius V is not only an
offense to their memory, but diametrically opposed to the intentions and purposes of both
the Dogmatic Council of Trent and Pope Pius V.

65. There is no comparison between the actions of previous pontiffs and this current Motu
Proprio; which is not a pastoral document, but a papal decree against the traditions of the
church.

66. There is no comparison between Summorum Pontificum and Traditionis Custodes,
despite the bishop of Rome claiming they are both in line with the same spirit.

67. The spirit of Summorum Pontificum was one of pastoral concern and reconciliation;
whereas the spirit of Traditionis Custodes is one of immense pride and hatred.

68. The presentation of the Current Bishop of Rome’s machinations as being in accordance
with Sacred Scripture and the traditions of the church is blasphemous; and a greater
heresy than the fathers of the Reformation could ever have come up with.

69. The current occupant of Saint Peter’s chair makes it clear in this decree that he is not
concerned with growth or preservation of souls, but with conformity to his own will.

70. The Bishop of Rome seems perfectly content with issuing condemnations and decrees on
the traditional liturgy as being bad for the church; yet gladly welcomes in those who
bring forth pagan idols and anti-Christian theologies.

71. It is a supreme irony that the Bishop of Rome should claim traditionalists represent a
threat to papal supremacy, while the Amazonian Synod denied his authority to his face in
Saint Peter’s basilica.

72. The work of the church is the preservation and salvation of men’s souls; not mere
conformity with the wishes of bishops.

73. Demanding conformity of all Christians to one form of worship flies in the face of the
unique story of every man’s faith journey; as though their lives are seen as non-important
to the Bishop of Rome who claims to care for them.

74. The Council of Trent may have codified and canonized the Tridentine mass; but even
they granted dispensation and infallible permission for the celebration of other, equally
ancient and traditional rites within the church’s liturgy.

75. The unity that the Bishop of Rome seeks does not exist in the liturgy itself, but in the
faith of the people who worship the Risen Christ.

76. The denial of the faithful’s God-given right to prayer and worship in His holy name
simply because the Roman Pontiff does not like it, is not the act of a shepherd of the
flock of Christ; but an act of Anti-Christ.

77. The restricting of traditional parishes and religious orders within the Roman communion
because the Roman Pontiff does not care for their liturgy; demonstrates a shallow, and
ideologically selfish view of the Petrine Ministry.

78. Traditionis Custodes implies to the faithful who are attached to the Tridentine liturgy,
that their prayers are neither acceptable nor desirable; and that the only way to be
Catholic is to follow the momentary, fleeting opinions of the current Bishop of Rome.

79. The Bishop of Rome claims he is handing over the authority on this to the bishops, yet
Traditionis Custodes even states that the bishops must make their decisions only after
consulting the Holy See.

80. By this condition, the Bishop of Rome sets himself up as the sole arbiter of who may or
may not worship in the traditional rites of the church; an act repugnant to the sacred
scriptures, and the traditions and doctrines of the church.

81. It is apparent from the tone of Traditionis Custodes regarding parishes and religious
communities dedicated to the Tridentine Rite, that the concern of the Bishop of Rome is
more with their money than their souls.

82. It is apparent from the tone of Traditionis Custodes regarding individual priests
celebrating the pre-conciliar liturgies, that the concern of the Bishop of Rome is with
blind compliance; rather than whether they be genuine doctors of souls.

83. It is apparent from the tone of Traditionis Custodes regarding the liturgy, that the Bishop
of Rome believes that only the post-conciliar liturgy is an acceptable expression of
Catholic faith and Identity; and all others must be relegated to the past.

84. It is apparent from the tone of the introduction to Traditionis Custodes, that the Bishop of
Rome feels that his decisions are perfectly acceptable and in line with Catholic teachings;
simply because he is who he is, and not by consulting the church on the matter.

85. It is clear from Traditionis Custodes that the Bishop of Rome and his flatterers who
encouraged and proudly promulgate this document did not bother to consult any of the
clergy or parishes which they intend to suppress by this act.

86. It is clear that the current Bishop of Rome is issuing decrees that are based on personal
vendettas and machinations; reverting the church back to renaissance-era corruption
which prompted the Protestant reformation.

87. The imposing of biased restrictions on communities who seek to preserve the ancient
traditions of the church are counter-productive, and at worst inspired by the spirit of
Anti-Christ.

88. It is clear that by the promulgation of Traditionis Custodes, the Bishop of Rome sets
himself up as a judge of men’s souls; an act repugnant to the nature of the Crucified and
Risen Lord.

89. It is clear by the publication of Traditionis Custodes, that the Bishop of Rome is
attempting to hack away at the branches of the church which he personally dislikes,
regardless of the lasting impact or consequences of his actions.

90. It is painfully obvious by the publication and implementation of this document, that the
Bishop of Rome has set himself up as a contrary authority to Christ himself.

91. It is clear by the attitude of the Bishop of Rome, in issuing this Motu Proprio only days
after he was preserved from harm through a dangerous operation; that the Bishop of
Rome believes his own opinions are semi-divine in nature.

92. It is clear that the intent of the current Bishop of Rome’s design is no less than the
destruction of the Christian faith, inherited by the church over 20 centuries of struggle
and life.

93. It is clear through this motu proprio that the Bishop of Rome has handed over the keys to
the kingdom to those who seek to convert it into a pagan temple to mankind’s selfish
ambitions.

94. The motu proprio is issued in defiance of the Catholic faith and history; and is clearly
targeted at bringing both to naught.

95. It has become painfully obvious that the current attitudes of the authorities in Rome is not
of Christ; but of Anti-Christ.

Sunday, July 18, 2021

Pastoral Allocution of H.H.E. the Archfather on the Importance of Character

 

FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 18 July 2021 (NRom)

Pastoral Allocution of H.H.E.
on the Importance of Character

18 July A.D. 2021

Feast of St. Camillus de Lellis

      Carissimi! Character is what we believe, expressed in our behaviours. Character is the sum of how we behave when no one is looking; how we accomplish a task, face a challenge, treat other people. Good or bad character is evident in how we lead and how we follow. One or the other is often shaped in the face of implicit or direct opposition to our moral beliefs. 

(Video below. Transcript continues below the video.)

     Each of us have experienced ample examples in our daily lives. Enough to know that the better angels of our nature seem to appear less frequently than we wish. They are absent in a world where the mere expedient thing is too often chosen as “right” over the morally correct thing to do. While it is never wrong to do the right thing, making that determination can be difficult, even among those with impeccable character. It is true that sometimes the right thing may vary according to the circumstances, such as a particular group being in power. Yet, the underlying principle that should guide such discretion remains the same. There are absolutes and constants. What is right and wrong is not and cannot be determined by popular vote. Indeed, the universal and eternal nature of truth is such that it is possible for everyone to be wrong and no one to be right in a given course of action. We cannot merely determine morality by popular vote or by expediency of circumstances. A person of character will strive to resist the temptation within the limitations of human frailty. Such notions as “others will think ill of me if I do not go along” or “this path was easier” are not valid justifications for supporting, explicitly or implicitly, immoral courses of action. 

     Far too often people are given credit for being good people, upright citizens, and thoughtful friends when in reality they merely were “going along to get along” by not resisting the actions and intentions of others they knew were wrong. Indeed, it is not usually easy to be the voice of dissent, even if dissenting and refusal to cooperate is the correct thing to do. Strength of character defines what people will do in those situations. Moral courage is essential. 

     Far too often people are praised and honoured, but fail to honour their commitments. Excuses abound. Inaction becomes the path of least resistance. Lack of responsibility plus lack of accountability is the formula for lack of good character! Clearly, our character counts and impacts not only ourselves, but everyone around us. 

     Will you choose popularity over right? Will you seek to please man rather than God? Will your life be guided by the path of least resistance? Or, will you strive to do the right thing always and everywhere, even when it is not popular, profitable, or easy? 

     Will you honour your commitments that you make to others? Will you always seek to follow the precept of Charlemagne that right action is more important than knowledge, but in order to do right, we must first know what is right?

Friday, July 16, 2021

Archfather Comments on New Latin Mass Policy in Roman Communion

By Jean DuBois

FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 16 July 2021 (NRom)

Earlier today His Holiness and Eminence Papa Rutherford I, Prince of Rome issued a statement regarding the new policy of His Holiness Francis regarding the use of the Latin mass in the Roman Communion. The Archfather expressed significant concern that the fundamental and ancient rights of Roman Catholics around the world have been violated. 

The full text of the statement is given below:

     We are deeply saddened and extraordinarily concerned by the recent change in policy by Our Brother the Bishop of Rome regarding the ability of the Catholic faithful within the Roman Communion to use the traditional Latin Tridentine mass and accompanying liturgy. Truly they have been evicted from their homes, declared guilty when guiltless, as was our Lord. Although We anticipated such change, We nevertheless prayed and hoped that the Holy Spirit would be listened to that it thereby would not come to fruition.

     The right to the Tridentine mass, often referred to now as the “Latin Mass,” was established in perpetuity by Pope Saint Pius V in Quo Primum and even referenced by Pope Saint Paul VI. It may not be suppressed. The Holy Father Benedict XVI merely confirmed those rights and ensure that they would be protected globally, even against modernists within the church hierarchy. Now that protection has been removed, placing the traditional Catholics within the Roman Communion at spiritual peril and in a situation of religious persecution from their own hierarchy. Indeed, as Our most holy predecessor Pope Saint Pius IX said, liberal Catholics are the worst enemies of the church. Now the door has been flung open wide for the widespread suppression of adherents to the Tridentine liturgy.

     Indeed, it appears that not only may no new Latin mass communities be formed within the dioceses of the Roman Communion, those that do exist now apparently must find other accommodations, for they are no longer permitted to celebrate that liturgy within existing parish buildings. This act of policy change not only is against sacred tradition and the fundamental rights of Catholics, but also is against that form of authentic diversity and inclusion so deeply cherished since antiquity within the Holy Catholic Church.

    Regarding the new requirement that bishops ensure that any existing Latin mass communities fully accept the Second Vatican Council, We must state that the Council may certainly be acknowledged as a pastoral Council only, for that is what Pope Saint John XXIII intended it to be. However, no faithful Catholic may accept in any way the numerous theological and doctrinal errors that were the result of exploitation of the Council by various modernists and liberal Catholics. This includes both errors in liturgy and subsequent Catholic culture, for both reflect theology and doctrine, underscoring the importance of both.

     It was stated that this new policy was made to foster unity, but We firmly believe it will have the exact opposite effect. Indeed, We cannot comprehend why the modern Vatican of today is so welcoming and tolerant to those even who reject Catholic faith of Christ, but is simultaneously so hostile to its own people who do nothing but keep the true and traditional Catholic faith in an ever-changing world.

     Therefore, We reiterate Our commitment to safeguard the one, true, holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman faith within Our universal jurisdiction as Coadjutor of Rome and Legate of Christ, and within Our Anglican Patriarchate and the Anglo-Roman Metropolitan Province of Aquileia. We further charge all faithful Catholics within Our Patriarchate and province, as well as all the faithful of the world to follow the precepts, teachings, and commands of the traditional Church through the years and keep the true individual faith, no matter the opposition.

Saturday, June 5, 2021

The Myth of Christian Democracy -- New Encyclical Released

FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 5 June 2021 (NRom)

The following encyclical was released by HHE the Papa-Prince. In the encyclical, the Archfather discusses democracy, freedom, and the Christian faith.


The Myth of Christian Democracy

To the Bishops of the European Union, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth

Carissimi,

THE myth of Christian democracy is long and widely held among the nations who profess democratic and republican forms of government originating in the ideas of the Enlightenment. Yet such is entirely and completely inconsistent with the doctrine of the Christian Faith. The notion of Christian democracy is purely and entirely a myth rooted within the anti-Christian notions of the Enlightenment-era philosophy. That the majority of the population of such nations is or was at least nominally Christian does not render such forms of government Christian on any level. Rather, to see the true nature of any particular form of government or government institution, one must look at the foundational philosophies, the context in which they were formed, and the very foundational documents themselves.

Although the world’s oldest democracy in continuous existence to the present is actually San Marino, located in the Italian peninsula, We will focus for purposes of example on the United States of America since it is both a prime example of the issues of which We write and a highly influential nation in the world today.

It is well established, yet not necessarily well-known that the American Revolution and the subsequent Republic of the United States of America were founded in the philosophy of the Enlightenment. Nowhere in the original document founding the government of the United States, i.e., the Articles of Confederation, is the name of God mentioned or invoked. Likewise, in the subsequent foundational document upon which the government of the United States even to the present day is derived, i.e., the United States Constitution, the name of God is neither mentioned nor invoked. Religion is mentioned only in the case of the free exercise thereof in the First Amendment, and also in the articles themselves in the statement that there will be no religious test required for office. Also, in the document used to justify the American Revolution, i.e., the Declaration of Independence, nowhere is Christ invoked. God is only mentioned in the vague sense of the Creator and as “Nature’s God.” Neither of those references is, when understood in the context in which the document was written, sufficient to claim Christian origin of the government of the United States or Christian justification for the revolution. This is further supported by the lack of mention of the Holy Trinity. The anti-Catholic statement made by Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and future United States president, coupled with his general religious philosophy, further give even more doubt that there could be any Christian origin in that document. Indeed, the foundational documents of the United States were written in and of the philosophy of the Enlightenment. Insofar as anything spiritual was involved, it was guided by Deism, not by the Christian Faith.

Although the rights of man were stated as basic principles of the Enlightenment, the way in which those rights were framed and their stated origin are not consistent with Christian theology. In the Enlightenment, the origin of any rights of man is not God in the Christian sense or even necessarily God at all. Insofar as God is even mentioned, it is under the philosophy of Deism, which is yet again inconsistent with Christian theology and doctrine, for it does not acknowledge the Holy Trinity as essential or even at all.

Indeed, the Enlightenment was wholeheartedly against the Christian faith – especially the Holy Catholic Faith. The notion of democracy and of republics stemming from Enlightenment philosophy is based on popular sovereignty, which is likewise an incompatible notion with Christianity. Popular sovereignty both states and implies that the will of the majority of the people is what determines the law, what people may and may not do, and ultimately what the nation considers right and wrong. It therefore necessarily prohibits people from acting freely under the laws of God if those actions happen to be against the laws of man as determined by popular sovereignty. No such society can rightly call itself Christian in terms of government or say that its government indeed derives from Christian theology and morality.

Right and wrong cannot be determined by majority vote. What is right and wrong can only be determined correctly under the laws of God, which are supreme to all laws of man and from which all laws of man must flow if they are to have any legitimacy whatsoever. Neither, again, may an individual’s right to do good under the laws of God be correctly infringed by majority vote, as in any form of democracy, including a representative republic. Christian doctrine is clear – democracy does not and cannot respect the rights of the individual, for those rights are always tempered by the will of the majority. Even in the case of a thoroughly-determined minority in a democracy that manages through influence to push its will on the nation, it is nevertheless an outgrowth of popular sovereignty and majority will, for silence is itself a form of expression and a form of vote.

Now, it is tempting for some who are disillusioned with democracy to think that socialism and communism are the answer. Yet, those systems offer no more respect for the rights of the individual then democracy, and they are already well-condemned by Us and Our most holy predecessors. Yet, in terms of respect for the laws of God and for the rights of individuals under the laws of God, all forms of communism, socialism, and democracy are inherently against the Christian faith and can claim no origins from the Christian faith. All attempts to fix a democracy will necessarily fail since the system is inherently flawed in its origin. Only a government that is truly based not upon popular sovereignty, but upon the laws of God can claim to promote peace, freedom, and the rights of man. It is that form of government for which the bishops, the clergy, and the faithful around the world must openly and peacefully advocate. All attempts to promote Enlightenment philosophy and its various related branches in the modern era must be opposed and resisted peacefully.

It is only from Christ that true authority derives. It is only in Christ that mankind may be free.

Friday, June 4, 2021

The Hypocrisy of Nations: New Encyclical Released

FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 4 June 2021 (NRom)

His Holiness & Eminence the Archfather released a new encylical today on hypocrisy by governments in the western world. The encyclical was prompted by the action of the EU and USA against the sovereignty of Belarus. The complete text is provided below.

RVTHERFORDVS PP. I

The Hypocrisy of Nations

Carissimi,

THE hypocrisy of nations, specifically of the European Union, United States of America, and the United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth, is flagrantly manifest during recent events in the world today. It is an example of a complete abdication of Christian statesmanship and fraternal love. When nations not only criticise other nations for what they themselves do, but openly seek to interfere in the sovereignty of sovereign nations, and to do harm economically, politically, and even physically to the other nations, all in the name of so-called freedom and justice, it is hypocrisy of the worst kind. It is hypocrisy that can do tremendous, long-lasting harm to countless people.

When nations interfere in the political processes economic activities of other nations, they have no right to condemn that activity in others.

When states engage in torture and tolerate prison violence, they have no right to criticise such acts in others.

When nations intercept aircraft and vessels, even forcing innocent people to the pavement under threat of death, even for the most minor of reasons, they have no right to criticise that behaviour in other nations.

When nations have engaged in trickery, they have no right to criticise that in other states.

When sovereign states do not respect the sovereignty of others, they lose any right they may have to claim that they are acting for the benefit of others in the international politics – and they lose any claim to the moral high ground.

This is a common game, and it is one that is dishonorable, unethical, and un-Christian. The good and Christian faithful must see it for what it is, not fall prey to propaganda of states, including of their own country, and must therefore always preach the truth of Christ. The good and Christian faithful must advocate to the governments of the civil states in which they live that those states behave internationally towards other nations in an appropriate and Christian manner. Above all, the bishops and the clergy must vocally advocate and insist, for the laws of Christ are above all laws of man.

The European Union, United States of America, and the United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth must look at themselves in the mirror before they criticise other nations. They must solve their own problems themselves before condemning others. Far easier is it to ignore one’s own flaws, instead drawing attention away by pointing out those same flaws in others. How people love to rant against others whose flaws and negative actions are merely reflections of themselves, for it is easier than admitting error and correcting it. Yet the error must be identified and faced directly in the love of Christ. Otherwise hope of peace on earth and eternal salvation dissipate and disintegrate.

Saturday, May 15, 2021

The Modern Pontifical Court: Here’s why it matters.

By Jean Du Bois

FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 15 May 2021 (NRom)

The modern Pontifical Court (Pontificia Corte) is the direct continuation of the historic Pontifical Court and is formally part of the Anglican Patriarchate, Patriarchal See of the Stato Pontificio (Pontifical Roman State) and temporal successor of St. Peter the Apostle. It is distinct from the modern Pontifical Household of the Bishop of Rome in the Vatican City-State.

In modern society today, some question the necessity of such a ceremonial organisation as the Pontifical Court. With its ancient traditions and style that it continues, some think it is anachronistic and want it to fall prey to the countless cultural revolutions that take place. But it is not only relevant, it is essential to the faith and to the Church. What some perceive as anachronistic or out of step with the world is instead its strength, for it demonstrates in a living way the unchanging truth of the faith and love of Christ.

The Pontifical Court is not a hobby or a past time. It is not entertainment. It is not even a special privilege granted to the chosen. Instead, it is a vocation of service. Every single clergyman and every single layman, whether male or female, who is admitted to the Pontifical Court is expected to serve. That service may be at times directly in the court, and it may be service in many other areas. It comes with privileges, such as the laissez passer (a sort of diplomatic passport) of the Stato Pontificio and Anglican Patriarchate. But with position comes expectation of filial respect, dedication, and service. Members of the Pontifical Court are expected to give all of themselves in service to God.

The Grand Master of the
Noble Company
There is no denying that the Pontifical Court has a certain mystique about it. It is complex, an arena of silk, velvet, golden-tasseled hats, and long, flowing capes. It is comprised of clergy and laity, most of whom are of the nobility. There are priests, and there are knights. There are scarlet-coated gentlemen, and there are guards with a legacy back to the Crusades. There is the jeweled tiara of the Archfather, and the flabella (ostrich-feathered fans). Then there is the Noble Company, with its green robes and silver and gold collars. Most clergy are prelates and addressed as Monsignor – with twelve different levels. On one hand it is theatrical, but the theater has a purpose. That purpose is to support the Church, protect it against its enemies, and sustain it into the future. The theatre’s symbolism also attracts, explains, and preserves historical heritage. The ostentatious display was and is for God alone.

Flabellum
And what exactly is the Pontifical Court? It is the ceremonial and administrative organisation that supports the ministry of the Archfather-Prince and Coadjutor of Rome. In the past, it fulfilled the same function for the Bishop of Rome, but that has now been replaced by the Pontifical Household of the Vatican. Its membership has always included both the laity and the clergy. In its current organisational structure, it has several key sections. First is the Chapter, which is part of the upper-half of the court known as the Nobile Anticamera Segreta. It includes the senior-most dignitaries of the clergy. Their role is to serve as spiritual advisors to the Archfather and to fulfill various ceremonial roles in the liturgy. The Pontifical (or Patriarchal) Household is considered the immediate family and includes the three Archprinces and three Archprincesses of the Patriarchate, among a very few others.

The Master of the Chamber
Then there is the Pontifical Family, which spans both the Nobile Anticamera Segreta and the Seconda Anticamera and includes certain high officials, both clerical and lay, that support the Anglo-Roman Papa in his ceremonial and administrative duties. These include Patriarchal Chamberlains (clergy) and Chamberlains of Honour (lay nobles), Parafrenieri (noblemen who serve as grooms), the Patriarchal Majordomo (who can be a cleric or a layman), the Guardroba (wardrobe master), and certain other nobles, both male and female.

The Nobles of the Anticamera form another part of the Nobile Anticamera Segreta. The remainder of the Seconda Anticamera includes Private Chaplains of His Holiness and Eminence (clergy) and Private Chaplains of Honour (laity). Offices in this section include the mace bearers, bussolanti (ushers who also serve as altar servers), and Patriarchal Cursors (heralds), and also private attendants, assistants of the household, and porters.

The Chief of the General Staff,
Pontifical Walsingham Guard
Today with all of the various “-isms” that we all hear about on the news and read on the internet, each claiming to be the latest, greatest solution to all the woes of the world, the traditions of the church are put under pressure to “get with the times.” The Church naturally responds that this is impossible, for the message of the Church is timeless and also knows no geographical or political borders. This pressure is compounded by blatant anti-Catholicism with which society is bombarded by the media, in popular entertainment, in the workplace, and in politics. The ultimate goal appears to be first to convince the population that there are no absolute truths, and that one idea is just as good as another. From there, it is not a difficult leap for people to reach the sad conclusion that God does not exist. This is already taking place, with some churches proclaiming that belief in Jesus is not necessary to be Christian. This sad state of the world today may have differences from the environment of the past but nevertheless echoes the threats to Holy Mother Church that have always existed. This is the reason why the Pontifical Court, complete with all its pomp and ceremony, complete with all its complexity and grandeur is absolutely essential and necessary in the world today.

Some Members of the Patriarchal Chapter
Maintaining the traditions of the Pontifical Court is a tried-and-true method of maintaining the moral fibre of the church so necessary to transmitting the Christian Faith and providing Christian service to humanity. As society changes, it also provides mechanisms of service for noble families, both ancient and modern, who may be struggling with keeping their family identity and relevance in the modern world. The Church truly is eternal, and the message of Christ is timeless. Showing that to the world is the mission of the Pontifical Court. Christ founded the Church, and both the authority of the Church hierarchy and the traditional, complementary structure of society are believed by the doctrine of the faith to be divinely ordered. This is demonstrated in the Pontifical Court. With all its grandeur, the court awakens the imagination, engages the senses, and opens the mind to the truth of Christ.

Today the Pontifical Court is part of the intangible cultural heritage safeguarded by the Anglican Patriarchate by divine right under the leadership of the Archfather as temporal successor to St. Peter the apostle. It is a sacred duty and obligation not only of the Anglo-Roman Papa, but of all members of the Pontifical Court, to safeguard its traditions in the face of outside pressure so that the glory of God may be reflected on earth now and in the future until the end of the world.

Tuesday, May 11, 2021

The Anglican Patriarchate and the Anglo-Roman Rite as Intangible Cultural Heritage

FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 10 maggio 2021 (NRom)

The Anglican Patriarchate and the Anglo-Roman Rite
as Intangible Cultural Heritage

In the Stanze di Raffaello
The Anglican Patriarchate represents Old Roman Catholicism (traditional Roman Catholicism stemming from the ancient Roman Catholic See of Utrecht in modern-day Netherlands, formerly part of the Holy Roman Empire, given independence in 1145) of the Anglican Rite, being pre-reformation Anglo-Roman Catholicism. As a result, the unique Anglo-Roman Rite of the Christian faith uses Catholic rites and customs that were once far more common than those used by Catholics today. Modernly known as the Anglican Rite Roman Catholic Church, the Patriarchate is thus historically and culturally distinct from the modern Vatican Church, which no longer uses many of the ancient Catholic rites of it own origin. Rather, the Patriarchate finds itself the unique keeper of traditional Catholic cultural heritage. In so doing, the Anglican Patriarchate constitutes a distinct minority that keeps that intangible culture alive for future generations in Italy, the British Isles, parts of Switzerland, Germany, France, Spain, and the Americas.

Patriarchal Basilica of
Santa Maria Antiqua
 As defined by UNESCO, "intangible cultural heritage" includes traditions inherited from ancestors and passed on to descendants. Such heritage include social practices, rituals, festive events, knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe. Therefore, today's Anglican Patriarchate, as a representative of the Anglo-Roman Rite, represents a distinct and unique religious activity based on an ancient, intangible world cultural heritage. However, although the modern community organisation of the Anglican Patriarchate is the traditional representative of more than 400 million people across several nations, that number is decreasing, along with the very few people whom are active participants in keeping its ancient traditions alive. Growing tends of globalisation, couple with other social forces make the Patriarchate's expression of cultural diversity in danger and in need of protection. For, an understanding of the intangible cultural heritage of the Anglican Patriarchate and the Anglo-Romano Rite helps with factual historical perspective, leading to better-informed intercultural dialogue, while encouraging mutual respect between peoples and different ways of life. Indeed, intangible cultural heritage is important not because of cultural manifestation, but because of the wealth of knowledge, skills, and traditions that is transmitted through it across the generations.

St. Peter receives the keys to the
Kingdom of Heaven from Christ
 The intangible cultural heritage of the Anglican Patriarchate and Anglo-Roman Rite not only represents inherited traditions from the past, but also includes contemporary practices grounded in those ancient traditions. Diverse cultural groups such as a wide variety of ethnic minorities around the world take part in its practices.

Our intangible cultural heritage contains elements that are similar to those practised by others, such as the Vatican Roman Catholic Church, other Old Roman Catholics, and others of Anglican heritage. Yet our practices today remain a distinct minority. They were passed from one generation to another, but declined in numbers dramatically in recent times. Some elements appear to be kept alive only within the Anglican Patriarchate. Yet, the combined intangible cultural heritage of the Anglican Patriarchate contributes to social cohesion and encourages a sense of identity and responsibility within it community and allied organisation, both helping individuals to feel part of that community and society at large. That sense of identity and continuity provides a link from the past to the present and into future.

Our intangible cultural heritage is representative. Our people depend on knowledge of traditions and customs passed through the community, from generation to generation, and to other communities.

Our intangible cultural heritage is recognized as invaluable and inherent to us by our community. It is our community membership and hierarchy that create, maintain and transmit that heritage. By UNESCO definition, it is our recognition, not that of anyone else, that defines our beliefs, knowledge, expression, rituals, and practices as our heritage.

The Anglican Patriarchate today is indeed a much smaller Catholic community with history, heritage, and location in various parts of the world. However, the Anglo-Roman Rite is remains a distinct culture, characterised by a number of distinct features, including its own unique liturgy based on the pre-1955 Tridentine Roman Rite with Anglican cultural elements. For example, the use of both Latin and liturgical English in rituals; Anglo-Roman, Anglo-Italian, Spanish, and other Latin heritage; Frankish/Germanic heritage; vestments and dress not currently known to be in use in other similar communities anymore; the use of ceremonial colour representation that has fallen out of use in other similar communities; the use of offices within the community of ancient origin but not known to be use in other similar communities today; and the use of various visual and artistic representations of cultural of ancient origin but not known to be in use in other similar communities today. In accordance with its ancient patrimony, women are able to hold certain high community offices often barred to them in other similar communities.

The synthesis of pre-Reformation Anglican practice (Anglo-Roman Catholicism) with the Roman Rite, combined with certain pre-Christian Roman cultural traditions has created a unique blend of intangible cultural heritage in the modern Anglican Patriarchate. The pillar of its identity – the traditional Catholic Church – is believed to be maintained for the Anglican Rite with supreme authority from the modern Anglican Patriarchate under the leadership of the Anglo-Roman Papa, also known as the Archfather. However, despite its maintaining an ancient and distinct heritage, today only a few people have a good knowledge of its cultural heritage, traditions, beliefs, and practices. Thus there is an urgent need to disseminate this knowledge and to involve more people in its preservation by recovering elements preserved only in written documents, film and audio archives, and various depositaries.

Its viability and very existence is at risk due to cohesion issues stemming from a number of factors, including: geographical dispersion, pressure to change by outside cultures, diminishing fiscal resources, reduced opportunities for physical practice and transmission of heritage, resulting in less visibility and lowered prestige among society at large in much of the world. There is thus a definite need to identify a number of strategic safeguarding interventions so that such targeted efforts will contribute to a more general strengthening of the cultural heritage and identity of the Anglican Patriarchate and the Anglo-Roman Rite and its people.

Useful links: