Saturday, December 18, 2021

Destruction in Philippines & Kentucky: Anglo-Roman Holy Father Expresses Concern, Speaks of Hope

By A. DiNardo 


In the wake of the recent deadly typhoon in the Philippines and devastating tornadoes in Kentucky, USA, many people are seriously suffering. For survivors, the sobering reality is yet more hardship, confusion, sadness, pain, and problems on top of a world pandemic.  For them, the notion of happy Christmas holidays may seem distant; yet we know that faith and hope will help to rebuild. If you want to help, consider donating through the Apostolic See (Anglican Patriarchate), the Red Cross, or other reputable charities. His Holiness & Eminence Papa Rutherford I expressed his concern in a statement earlier today. The Archfather said:

Our prayers are with the people of the Philippines who are suffering the devastation of a typhoon, and with the people of Kentucky suffering the aftermath of devastating tornadoes. Amidst the death and destruction of major natural disasters, we see nevertheless hope for mankind in the Christlike, selfless service of those who rise to the challenge and help others. In those who comfort the grieving, lift up those who have been damaged, and rebuild what has been destroyed, we see the example of Christ in action. During this Advent season, let us therefore see hope in the coming of Christ. Let suffering here on earth be to the benefit of the poor souls in purgatory. Let us follow the example of obedience of the Blessed Virgin, going forward always in the faith of Christ, even through difficult times.

Wednesday, December 1, 2021

Stato Pontificio celebrates first ever Feast of Pope Saint Leo X

By Jean DuBois

FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 01 Dec 2021 (NRom) 

Today the Pontifical States and the Anglican Patriarchate of Rome celebrated the first-ever Feast of Pope Saint Leo X. Saint Leo was canonized earlier this year by His Holiness Papa Rutherford I. 

St. Leo, known primarily for his papal bull excommunicating Martin Luther, reigned as Pope from 1513 to his death in 1521. Born Giovanni de' Medici, he was the second son of Lorenzo de' Medici, ruler of the Republic of Florence, and Clarice Orsini. He has himself been Lord/Prince of Florence. Thus, when he became Pope, he became the first Florentine Archfather. He is one of the main founders of the Anglican Patriarchate of Rome. 

Sunday, November 21, 2021

Anglo-Roman Holy Father Condemns the Sale of Afghan Girls into Marriage


The following is a Patriarchal letter from His Holiness Papa Rutherford I regarding the situation of the selling of child brides in Afghanistan. This follows earlier statements by the Archfather on the human rights situation following the withdrawal of coalition forces from Afghanistan. 

Laudetur Jesus Christus! 

     Dear brethren, the vacuum of power left in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of the United States and other nations, which allowed the violent return to power of the Taliban, has serious human rights consequences. On this we have already spoken, and indeed many of the world leaders of civil states have turned a deaf ear to the suffering of many. 

     Today, We wish to address a specific issue of human rights in Afghanistan, namely that of the selling of child brides. This ghastly and unfathomable practice is the result largely of the economic tur-moil created by the withdrawal of United States and coalition forces and the return to power of the Taliban. Those who were poor before now find themselves in even worse conditions, faced with making terrible choices. Others are recently impoverished due to the circum-stances and likewise find themselves making terrible choices. Many of the poor are selling their daughters, sometimes as young as seven or eight, into marriage. Some of them are destined for foreign countries. These girls are obviously, at that age, completely unaware of the circumstances of the arrangement. The practice is completely appalling and a violation of human rights, the dignity of mankind, and the sanctity of matrimony.

     Although we can be sympathetic to the crushing conditions that are resulting in fathers selling their child daughters into marriage, we nevertheless cannot approve of the practice. The blame must primarily lie, however, with those that put Afghan families into the economic conditions in the first place. That is the Taliban, as well as the Coalition forces that withdrew from Afghanistan, taking all of their protective capabilities with them.

     This is a crisis that good people cannot ignore. Therefore, We call upon all Christian people of the world to petition their civil governments through legal means to take appropriate action to safeguard the lives and dignity of those in Afghanistan impacted by recent economic decline. Furthermore, We call upon all Christian people of Coalition nations to petition their civil governments through legal means to take full and complete responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Saturday, November 13, 2021

Puerto Rican Business Leader Appointed Pontifical Nunzio to United Nations

By A. DiNardo

NEW YORK 13 November 2021 (NRom)

His Excellency Chev. José Rivera was appointed by His Holiness and Eminence Papa Rutherford I as Pontifical Nunzio of the Apostolic See to the United Nations. Chev. Rivera represents the Archfather and the Anglican Patriarchate in the United Nations, where the patriarchate is accredited in special consultative status through the Economic and Social Council.  

Chev. Rivera is from Puerto Rico. A civil engineer by profession, he has worked in engineering and construction management, as a building inspector, and as a consultant in Puerto Rico and the mainland United States.  He also served as a member of the U.S. Senate Task Force for Hispanic Issues during 1997-2001. He earned the rank of Eagle Scout in the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) and was selected for the Vigil Honor in the Order of the Arrow, a national honor society in BSA. The selection as a Vigil Honor member is based on his  demonstrated "unselfish devotion to the welfare of others."

Sunday, November 7, 2021

Chinese Whistleblower Dying in Prison - Archfather Urges Freedom

By Jean DuBois


The imprisonment of Zhang Zhan, a Chinese attorney and citizen-journalist, raised significant humanitarian concerns around the world. She released over 100 YouTube videos of the circumstances in Wuhan, China that led to the global pandemic. The Chinese government attempted to silence her, eventually giving her a four year sentence on a flimsy pretext. She is currently in poor health and at risk of death in prison. His Holiness and Eminence Papa Rutherford I issued a statement today on the situation. The Anglo-Roman Holy Father urged the Chinese government to release her immediately. The full text of the statement is below.


     We are compelled by brotherly love for humanity to speak about what can only be called a human rights violation perpetrated by the government of China. Our curial officials made Us aware that a Chinese citizen and attorney Zhang Zhan was prosecuted and jailed for filming and publicising the occurrences in Wuhan that ultimately led to the current global pandemic. The Chinese government exploited its legal system to arrest her and imprison her, imposing a four-year sentence. She engaged in a hunger strike as an act of protest, at times being force fed by prison officials. This has taken a toll, understandably, on her health. Particularly given the unjust nature of her imprisonment, this is the direct responsibility of the Chinese government. If she dies in prison or as a result of the ordeal later, the Chinese government will be culpable. Indeed, it has been reported that she is now in very poor health and in danger of dying. Therefore, We call upon the Chinese government to order her immediate release from prison to aid in her recovery to full health. We further encourage that her conviction be overturned and expunged from her record forthwith. 

Tuesday, October 12, 2021

Companion Hubert Germain, Knight of the Order of the Liberation dies age 101

By Jean DuBois

PARIS 14 October 2021 (NRom)

Companion of the Noble Company and French resistance fighter Chev. Hubert Germain, son of General Maxime Germain, died in Paris today at age 101. A member of the Free French Forces in the Second World War, he fought in the Battle of Bir Hakeim, saw service in Italy, and took part in the landing in South France in 1944. 

After the war he served as Mayor of Saint-Chéron, deputy in Parliament for Paris's 14th constituency,  and as Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. He was awarded the Croix de Guerre and the Grand Cross of the Legion of Honor. He was also named a Companion of the Order of Liberation, an order founded by Charles de Gaulle. The order was formed to "...reward people, of the military or civilian communities, who will have distinguished themselves in the task of liberating France and her Empire."

Sunday, October 3, 2021

Apostolic Letter: What would Jesus do in a story of two classes of society

FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 3 October 2021 (NRom)

Apostolic Letter
of His Holiness and Eminence
Papa Rutherford I

Laudetur Jesus Christus!

What would Jesus do in a story of two classes of society, one privileged and the other a complete underclass? The world has seen many such divisions in its history such that we know it is a common and persistent condition. Today in the world, We have observed a new dividing line established around the world that is becoming increasingly widespread. This dividing line is marking the difference between those who can work and those who cannot (or at least severely limiting their options); between those who can go to any school into which they can gain admission and those who cannot; between those who can travel freely and those who cannot; and between those who can go to events, restaurants, and other public spaces and those to whom such things are closed indefinitely. This dividing line is even defining the difference between those who can go to many churches in those who cannot. Even my brother the Bishop of Rome has slammed shut the doors to that sacred and beloved church that we share by right, the Basilica of St. Peter, and indeed the entirety of the Vatican City- State, to one specific group of people mocked by this dividing line. The Basilica and the Vatican have historically been sites welcoming countless pilgrims and those in need of refuge, but no more. It is a shame and a blight against the Church.

This dividing line We reference marks the difference between those who have had the COVID-19 vaccine and those who have not, whatever the reason. This has gone beyond, as We have stated before, legitimate concerns of public health (for We Ourselves indeed promote good health in its totality) and instead crossed into the realm of totalitarianism against which our civilisation and Our Church have always bravely fought. Even many segments of the Church, however, are turning their backs on those in need and refusing to serve all humanity regardless of divisions. And so We ask again, what would Jesus do?

Scripture is clear. Jesus walked with lepers and associated with the poor, the downtrodden, and those deemed undesirable by much of society. Our Lord healed the sick, made the blind see, and raised the dead. He told those who were unloved that He Himself loved them. He raised up those who were low and welcomed them into his circle, both on earth and in heaven.

Coming out of the front of the Basilica of St. Peter in Rome is the Bernini colonnade, curved to symbolise the outstretched arms of the Holy Church embracing the world – indeed Jesus Himself embracing the world through His spotless bride, the Church. Today so many have forgotten that symbol and the eternal truth behind it, as well as the example that it sets for each of us. The colonnade ultimately represents Christ embracing the entire world, regardless of race, nationality, wealth, or any other method of subdividing humanity, including vaccination status.

We as Christians cannot tolerate the idea that we would separate our fellow man into two categories according to whether or not they had a specific vaccine. We cannot turn a deaf ear to the concerns of those who have not received that vaccine. We cannot ignore and trample underfoot concerns of others simply because we may disagree with them. Not only does it set a dangerous precedent that has been used countless times, including by the Nazis in their eugenic policies, which they themselves borrowed from the United States of America’s eugenics efforts, but it is an act against love of our fellow man. It is an act against that fellowship that we are called upon to exhibit by our Lord Himself.

Therefore, let us all promote good health, as we should always do, but let us promote above all a love of our fellow man here on earth. Let us pray for those with whom we disagree rather than vilifying, chastising, and harming them in any way. Let us raise up our brothers and sisters as Christ has done.

Friday, October 1, 2021

Pastoral Letter by the Anglo-Roman Holy Father regarding Servant of God Father Kapuan

FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 1 October 2021 (NRom)

Pastoral Letter by the Archfather, His Holiness and Eminence Papa Rutherford I regarding the recovery of the body of Father Kapuan.

There is much that we can learn from Servant of God Father Emil Kapaun. He was an American Army chaplain in the Second World War and the Korean War. He died in a prisoner of war camp during the Korean War, and just now his body has been recovered and returned to his home in Kansas. In his service as a chaplain, Father Kapaun had a reputation for bravery, serving the troops under adverse conditions and rescuing both the wounded and the dead. He baptized, heard confessions, and said the mass far in the front under heavy enemy fire. His Jeep from which he celebrated mass was destroyed several times, but he survived. In 2013, he was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honour, the United States of America’s highest military decoration.

Upon being captured during the Battle of Unsan in 1950, he refused to escape, instead staying to serve his fellow prisoners of war. Conditions unsurprisingly were horrid, with men suffering abuses and were afflicted by many medical conditions, malnutrition, etc. He refused to give in to despair, stood against communist indoctrination even in his vulnerable position, and worked tirelessly to keep others going.

Father Kapaun exhibits the best attributes of a selfless priest. We all hope never to be in such difficult conditions as he was, but there is much that we can learn from him in our daily lives. First, there is no excuse or reason to come down to the least common denominator simply because things are difficult or challenging. The good father said the holy mass wearing the proper vestments and using the proper forms on an altar improvised on a Jeep in the field, even under enemy fire. If he, like so many other chaplains then, could do that, we can certainly keep our standards, our dignity, and our faith during any difficulties that we face. Character is most important in adversity.

Second, life does not always go as we expect. Father Kapaun was taken prisoner by the Communists, and though that was surely known as a possibility, it also surely was not his desire or expectation. Even when life does not go as we expect, we should follow the good father’s example and not lower our standards, not give in to fear and despair, and not fall prey to the sorts of indoctrination to which people are particularly vulnerable during stressful situations. Consider now during the pandemic how many are giving into fear and are becoming victims to all sorts of harmful indoctrination.

Third, you should never give up. That is a clear message of Father Kapaun. He kept going in war and in a prison camp until he finally succumbed to death. As long as we are living, there is hope, and we can continue. The enemy wants us to abandon hope and stop doing what we are doing. The enemy ultimately is the same as always, Satan. He comes in many guises – often masquerading as a force for good. He influences governments and their agents, institutions, and even sometimes friends and family. There is no trick that evil will not use in order to harm us and bring us down. Indeed, with God all things are possible, and we must never, ever give up. We must never lower ourselves or surrender our dignity, no matter how go or desperate things may seem.

Lastly, you must remember the power of prayer. Father Kapaun credited his own survival under fire to the prayers of others. No doubt he took strength and gained courage for his own immensely brave actions from his own prayers as well. And, his prayers and the sacraments he offered no doubt saved countless lives, strengthened others in their darkest hours, and raised up many people.

It is no surprise that the few still living who remember Father Kapaun personally were overjoyed that his body was recovered and brought to Kansas. We hope that this will renew public awareness of his heroic acts, thereby inspiring others to strengthen their own faith or even come to the faith for the first time.

Monday, September 27, 2021

Origins of the Clerical Collar and the use in the Anglican Patriarchate

By Jean DuBois

FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 27 September 2021 (NRom)

You have seen it in Hollywood movies, in the news, and at the local church. The little white plastic tab in the front of a black shirt or the full white plastic “ring” known as a band collar. The symbols of a clergyman. But how traditional are they?

As it turns out, the modern clerical collar is a recent invention in the late 19th century by a Protestant Anglican clergyman. He took a detachable shirt collar (collars tended to attach with little studs to shirts at that time) and turned it around backwards, dropping the tie. It gradually caught on and eventually spread to the Roman clergy.

If the clerical collar is relatively recent and maybe not-so-uniquely-clerical at all, what was worn in the preceding centuries? It’s a very simple answer. Usually it was a tie. A white tie, often known as a cravat, worn over a regular dress shirt. The cravat differs from the modern necktie. It would typically wrap around the neck and tie in the front. Sometimes it would be tied in a bow (and white bow ties were common among clergy). Sometimes it would be tied in a simple knot. Underneath the clerical cassock, it provided a look that is now being mimicked by the modern clerical collar. This was common among Roman clergy for quite some time. It was also the standard to be worn with the “short habit” that was the period version of the clergy suit commonly worn out in public outside of liturgical and ceremonial settings.

A cardinal wearing the period version
of the clergy suit, with a white cravat

That was not the only option. For much of the church’s history, a white shirt collar was worn underneath the clerical cassock, and sometimes it was brought up and turned down over the outside of the cassock. You can see these two looks in countless paintings of priests, bishops, cardinals, and even popes. In fact, Cardinal Newman regularly dressed that way, even often having the top button of his cassock and the collar unbuttoned. Only in his old age did he appear to adopt the modern version of the clerical collar.
Cardinal Newman wearing an open cassock with
open white collar

Pope Innocent XI with regular
collar turned over the habit

Cardinal de Richelieu wearing a large regular
collar over the habit

This ancient and consistent custom is kept as a trade with tradition in the Anglican Patriarchate. A regular white shirt collar is known as the “regular collar” in the canons and ceremonial and is commonly worn underneath the cassock. This actually makes it easier for clergy wearing the cassock to open both the top of the cassock and collar (like Cardinal Newman) when needed for work or other purposes. With the civic habit (clergy suit), the white silk cravat is a traditional item added (and a white bow tie or a white or black necktie may be also used). Also, there is the patriarchate's "collarino," which is essentially the front part of a long cravat wrapped around the front of the neck, but instead of being brought around and tied in the front, it is designed to be tied with little ties in the back under the collar. This is the closest look to the modern band or tab collar. Many find these styles much more comfortable. These are not modernist or liberal affectations, but traditions deeply rooted in the heritage, history, and common practices of the Holy Catholic Church.

Pope Clement XIV wearing a regular
collar under the habit.

The clergy of the Anglican Patriarchate are also free to use the tab collar or band collar according to their preference, though. Neckwear was never the defining symbol of the clergy. The clerical cassock or habit of a religious order has always been a key symbol, as is the zucchetto (skullcap), which represents symbolically the clerical tonsure.

Sunday, September 26, 2021

Is the United States a Catholic Country? An interview.

By Jean DuBois

FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 26 September 2021 (NRom)

Il Nunzio Romano recently interviewed Papa Rutherford I to get His Holiness's views on the question of whether or not the United States of America is a Catholic country. Here is the transcript of that interview with the Holy Father.

NR: People always say that the United States is not a Catholic country, and this widely held belief influences how Catholics and even Catholic clergy act. Do you agree that the United States is not a Catholic country?

PR: Sì e no... (Yes and no.) In terms of the culture in which the United States originally was formed, no. Geographically, considering the territory of the United States today, the answer is resoundingly yes.

Of course, the United States is officially a secular country, but we are talking here about culture. The founding principles of the United States grew out of the Enlightenment and deism, both of which are really quite opposed to Christianity, especially traditional Christian doctrine. The Declaration of Independence is an adaptation of the Treatise on Government by the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke. Thomas Jefferson's phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is adapted from John Locke's phrase "life, liberty, and property." The Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant's writings really reminded me of a lot of Catholic social doctrine with God removed completely as if everything happens in a vacuum.

Meanwhile, the British colonies in North America (because that is what became the United States) were staunchly anti-Catholic. The attempt at a Catholic haven in Maryland completely failed, including bloody conflict such as the Battle of the Severn. Declaration of Independence itself includes is one of his grievances against the King a blatantly anti-Catholic statement. That is, there was a grievance that complained about the King of England giving full religious freedom to French Roman Catholics in Québec. It has been argued that this act by the king, granting the same religious freedom that the British American colonists wanted for themselves, nevertheless sparked fear that there would be a "papal takeover" launched from Québec (conspiracy theories existed then as well!). Considering that disputes over money and taxation rarely seem to lead to actual armed conflict against a government, the fear of French Catholic influence arguably more than anything lit the fuse to the American Revolution.

So, when it comes to the culture of what formed the United States, no, it is certainly not a Catholic culture or country. However, when you take into account the geography of the continental United States today, the overwhelming majority of it was under the Spanish or French crown, even if only for a time --  and therefore Catholic. The original United States was comparatively small, and it grew to its present size by taking over the French and Spanish holdings. It is ludicrous to me to consider that hundreds of years of Catholic culture should simultaneously be erased simply because political borders change, whether in the eastern seaboard or moving westward.

NR: What are these differences in how Catholics act that we have heard about in the United States due to the Protestant influence?

PR: One of the biggest is in the visual. A dispensation was given to Catholic clergy in the United States to wear the clergy suit instead of the cassock or religious order habit in public so as not to "offend" the Protestant majority or invite discrimination. I entirely disagree with this decision, of course, but it is nevertheless what was done and is still influencing how Catholic clergy in the United States act today. Now, even in Rome it was common for quite a long time (in fact until the very end of the 19th century) for clergy to wear the "short habit" regularly as street dress (the Anglican Patriarchate maintains this custom). That can be considered somewhat of a period version of the clergy suit. The important thing is that it was done merely as an element of style and tradition, as well as for practical reasons, not to prevent discrimination or to accommodate those who dislike the Church.

Also, after the Second Vatican Council, which largely modernized, in the theological sense, the Church and brought in Protestant and other influences, Catholics did indeed become more accepted in the United States – at least to a point. The fact that that only came after such sweeping changes to the fundamental theology and traditions of the church should give any faithful Catholic pause for thought.

NR: Many have spoken of anti-Catholic discrimination in the United States, including Your Holiness. Can you elaborate more on this? Is it still around today?

PR: Absolutely. I already mentioned the colonial roots of anti-Catholicism. In fact, the first Catholic martyr in what is now the United States is believed to have been hanged in Boston by the Puritans, who believed she was a witch. There are actually still laws on the books in some areas in the United States against priests and religious brothers and sisters wearing their habits in public schools. That is bigoted discrimination, but comparatively minor to earlier forms of discrimination. Nevertheless, such policies need to be overturned. Remember that anti-Catholic discrimination (which does not have to be a law on the books, but can easily come from public sentiment) is a basic principle of the racist organisation the Ku Klux Klan. They are not just opposed to ethnic minorities, but to both the Catholic and Jewish faiths. When opposing the Catholic Church, especially traditional Catholicism such as We shepherd, people should ask themselves whether or not they want to be associated with something backed by groups like the Ku Klux Klan.

NR: Sometimes people say they are not opposed to Catholics, but they want Catholics to keep their faith hidden away at home and in the church, citing "religious neutrality." Do you agree that is a valid justification?

PR: Any sense of religious neutrality, for example on the part of a business or a secular state, is not violated by an individual living his or her faith openly. Wearing a crucifix or clerical habit, for example, is a statement of belief and sometimes a religious obligation. It is not something being forced on someone else. If you are offended by a particular sports team, does that mean someone cannot wear a shirt bearing the logo of that team? I doubt anyone would agree with such restrictions, even though sports disputes sometimes actually end up in violent conflict! To claim that anything religious may not be expressed openly is to disenfranchise religion and therefore to disenfranchise a very large segment of the population from complete participation and complete exercise of rights and freedom.

NR: Returning to the question of whether or not the United States is a Catholic country, in light of what Your Holiness said, what do you think the faithful and clergy should do now?

PR: That is a very good question. First, we should not persecute those with differing beliefs. In other words, we should not do unto others as many others have done to us, but instead we should exhibit the behaviour that we ourselves expect. Second, the faithful should – and really, I believe the faithful must – openly exhibit their Catholic faith and openly embrace the Catholic culture and heritage of the geographical area of the United States that has been suppressed for so long. This absolutely especially applies to the clergy, who need to remember to dress traditionally in accordance with the canons when in public. In the same sense as the "short habit" that I mentioned as being quite common in Rome in past times, the clergy suit is still absolutely fine provided it is worn for the right reasons. I encourage clergy to wear the cassock in public at least some of the time as a witness to the faith – especially to the traditional faith.

NR: Could this be difficult specifically for the people of the modern Pontifical States, the Anglican Patriarchate of Rome, and the New Roman Communion since they are so dispersed?

PR: It is often easier to do things when it is being done by many others, and it is often difficult to stand alone. What you say is certainly true. The Anglican Patriarchate, which leads the modern titular Pontifical States and the New Roman Communion, is most certainly a diaspora. We are good in number, but spread over a diverse geographical area. Thus we are an ethno-religious minority and are defined as an intangible cultural heritage. Yes, all of this makes things challenging at times, but no one ever said life was necessarily easy, let alone living the Catholic faith. Ultimately we must witness the Cross of Christ and His Holy Church no matter where we are.

NR: What about Europe? Much of it is traditionally Catholic, but it is now highly secularized.

PR: That is, unfortunately, very true. Both what you asked about the United States situation and my replies actually apply equally to Europe. Many of the same principles against the Church, by the way, were a major part of the French Revolution. (That is why I never celebrate Bastille Day!) In France, the revolutionaries engaged in wholesale murder of both the nobility and the clergy, even going so far as to create a new 10 day calendar in an attempt to stop Catholics from knowing what day was Sunday.

NR: Does Your Holiness have any parting thoughts?

PR: Secularisation is a worldwide phenomenon. Rather than submit, however, it is time that we peacefully reclaim our cultural heritage and our faith. May God bless each and everyone of you.

Saturday, September 25, 2021

Rutherford I visits a Marian shrine to pray for the Church.

FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 25 September 2021 (NRom)

From the Anglo-Roman Patriarchal See, a news video as the Archfather visits a Marian shrine to pray for the Church.

Monday, September 20, 2021

Gonfaloniere of the Church Appointed

By A. DiNardo

FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 20 September 2021 (NRom)

His Eminence Keith Cardinal Steinhurst, Duke of Westphalia, Cardinal-Bishop of Porto-Antico was recently appointed as Gonfaloniere of the Church by H.H.E. the Papa-Prince. The Gonfaloniere of the Church, which means "standard-bearer," is a high office within the Pontifical Walsingham Guard and the Court of the modern Pontifical States (Anglican Patriarchate of Rome). Today the office serves as the highest ceremonial rank within the Guard next to the Archfather and functions as the Archfather's representative within the Guard. Within the Pontifical Court, the office ranks immediately above the General Staff.

The office name originates from the use of the pontifical banners during battle, though it is now purely a ceremonial and administrative role. Due to its origin, however, the Gonfaloniere is entitled to maintain and display two flags, the military flag of the Stato Pontificio and the personal standard of the Holy Father.

Additionally, like other General and Flag Officers, he has a flag of rank. It is distinct, and in its modern form currently in use, it is red with the temporal emblem of the Stato Pontificio in gold (the crossed key of St. Peter with the sword of Saint Mark, surmounted by the ombrellino), with the insignia of rank on both sides. The insignia of rank is identical to that used by the Captain-General, and consists of crossed silver batons with silver Saint Stephen crosses on either side, a gold Roman eagle above, a gold Roman eagle within a wreath below, all surmounted by a crown. The Gonfalioniere is also entitled to the use of the crossed key and sword with ombrellino displayed within his coat of arms. This can be during the term of office, for life, or occasionally an hereditary privilege.

Historic List of Gonfalonieri

Robert Guiscard, Duke of Sicily
Saint Erlembald
Stephen the Norman
James II, King of Aragon
Galeotto I Malatesta
Ridolfo II da Varano di Camerino
Charles III, King of Naples
Carlo I Malatesta
Martin, King of Aragon and Sicily
Niccolò III d'Este
Ladislaus of Naples, King of Sicily
Louis II of Naples
Gianfrancisco I Gonzaga
Niccolò Fortebraccio
Giovanni Cardinale Vitelleschi
Francesco I Sforza
Niccolò Piccinino
Louis, Dauphin of France
Francesco I Sforza
Pedro Luis Borgia, Duke of Spoleto
Federico da Montefeltro
Giovanni della Rovere
Niccolo Orsini
Giovanni Borgia, Duke of Gandia
Cesare Borgia
Guidobaldo da Montefeltro
Alfonso I d'Este
Francesco Gonzaga
Giuliano de'Medici
Lorenzo II de'Medici, Duke of Urbino
Federico II Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua
Pier Luigi Farnese, Duke of Parma
Ottavio Farnese, Duke of Parma
Jacques Annibal de Hohenembs
Giacomo Boncompagni
Odoardo Farnese
Carlo Barberini, Duke of Monterotondo
Torquato Conti, Duke of Guadagnolo
Taddeo Barberini, Prince of Palestrina
Maffeo Barberini, Prince of Palestrina
Livio Odescalchi, Duke of Bracciano, Ceri, and Sirmium
Keith Cardinal Steinhurst, Duke of Westphalia

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


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 Holy Father 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 by the Holy Father is given below.u


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

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

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

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

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.