What does a Christian Economy look like? New Encyclical points the way.

The following encyclical on the timeless principles of a Christian economy in the world was promulgated by H.A.H. Prince-Bishop Rutherford (Radislav) I of Rome-Ruthenia

 

RADISLAV PP. I

Encyclical: Toward a Christian Economy

4 May 2025

“And they had all things in common... and no one said that any of the things he possessed was his own.” — Acts 4:32

“Give me neither poverty nor riches… lest I be full and deny Thee.” — Proverbs 30:8-9

1. Toward a Christian Economy: The Orthodox Principle of Just Stewardship

The United Roman-Ruthenian Church affirms that the economy is not merely a mechanism of production and consumption, but a field of moral action and spiritual consequence. Economic structures, like all social arrangements, must be judged by whether they uphold the dignity of the human person, serve the common good, and reflect the justice and mercy of God.

The Church rejects both the materialist individualism of unrestrained consumer capitalism and the dehumanizing collectivism of state technocracies, socialism, and communism. These two categories of systems, though in ideological opposition, share a common root in secularism and a disordered view of the human person — either as a mere producer and consumer, or as a cog in an impersonal bureaucratic machine.

2. The Orthodox of Distributism: A Path of Shared Stewardship

Following the wisdom of the Holy Fathers, Orthodox and Catholic practice, and the witness of the early Christian community, we advocate for an Orthodox Distributist Model — an economy in which the means of production (e.g., land, tools, crafts, small businesses) are widely and justly distributed, not concentrated in the hands of the few (whether oligarchs or state planners). This vision:

· Affirms private property as a natural good, when exercised with responsibility and service to others;

· Encourages family and local enterprise, agrarian and artisanal production, and cooperatives;

· Condemns exploitative debt, usury, and monopolistic control, which enslave persons and communities;

· Calls for subsidiarity, wherein decisions and resources remain at the most local and humane level possible;

· Exalts labor, not as a commodity, but as a sacred participation in God’s creative work;

· Demands just wages, not merely for survival, but for a life of dignity and spiritual flourishing;

· Upholds hospitality and almsgiving, not as charity alone, but as justice owed to the poor and stranger.

     This model does not idolize the market nor submit to central planning, but seeks an integrated economy of persons and communities, grounded in the ecclesial vision of communion and stewardship. It recognizes legitimate roles for markets and for governance — so long as both are accountable to moral truth and oriented toward human and spiritual good.

3. On Trade and the Bonds of Neighborly Exchange

Orthodox Old Catholic economic teaching, rooted in the commandment to love one’s neighbor, affirms that international trade is not merely economic but moral. It is a form of extended community between peoples, for we are all joined in Christ, even across ever-fluid political borders.

Healthy trade builds mutual respect, peace, and interdependence rightly ordered. While the Church recognizes that modest tariffs and trade policies may serve as tools of negotiation or protection in rare and specific circumstances, they must never become instruments of vengeance, isolation, nativism, or nationalistic pride. Blanket or erratic tariff regimes harm both producers and consumers, distort the natural bonds of mutual provision, and often punish the poor. Rather than economic warfare, we advocate for ethical and cooperative trade, fair pricing, and solidarity with nations striving to develop their own local economies in dignity and peace. As St. John Chrysostom teaches, “The rich exist for the sake of the poor, and the poor for the salvation of the rich.” So, therefore, must nations relate to one another with humility and justice.

4. Against the Polarization of Economic Discourse

Orthodox Old Catholic social witness calls us away from the false idols of political extremism, whether from the populist right or the technocratic left. The economic life of a nation must not become a battleground for ideological absolutism, but a field of discernment, stewardship, and charity. When political factions weaponize the economy, reducing complex human realities to slogans, tariffs, or central planning, they obscure the deeper truths of justice, community, and personal dignity. The Orthodox vision, grounded in the Incarnation and the life of the Church, calls for economic discourse rooted not in party allegiance, but in the Gospel’s demand for mercy, truth, and the well-being of all, especially the poor and the vulnerable.

5. A Moral Alternative for a Fractured World

In the face of increasing global inequality, ecological degradation, and spiritual alienation, we call upon the Christian faithful around the world, and upon parishes and institutions to:

· Support and invest in local economies, especially Orthodox farmers, tradespeople, and artisans;

· Develop credit unions and cooperative ventures grounded in Christian ethics;

· Advocate for policies that decentralize economic power and property, protect workers, and restore appropriate rest;

· Resist both the idolatry of wealth and the false salvation of state technocracy and socialism.

Our Lord taught us not to store up treasures on earth, but to seek first the Kingdom of God. Yet it is precisely in our daily economic choices — how we work, trade, save, and share — that this Kingdom begins to be made manifest.

Indeed, in Christian tradition, the Righteous Joseph the Betrothed is honored as the humble guardian of the Bogomater and the earthly protector of our Lord Jesus Christ. As a carpenter by trade, he exemplifies the sanctification of daily labor when offered in faith and obedience to God. His life reminds us that honest work, however simple or hidden, can become a means of grace and service when carried out in love, humility, and devotion. Through St. Joseph’s quiet diligence and unwavering care, he fulfilled his vocation with integrity, embodying the dignity of human labor in harmony with God’s providence. Thus Christians may rightly look to the Righteous Joseph as a patron and intercessor for all who work with their hands, provide for their families, and seek to live faithfully in the midst of their vocations.

May Saint Joseph the Righteous, the Holy Wonderworkers and Unmercenaries Cosmas and Damian, and Saint Basil the Great intercede for us, that we may build an economy not of greed or control, but of mercy, order, and truth.

Радислав Пп. I

United Nations Global Health Proposal Endorsed by United Roman-Ruthenian Church

By J. DuBois 

Rome-Ruthenia 12 September 2024 (NRom)

The Prince-Bishop of Rome-Ruthenia, as chief of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church and Pontifical Imperial State, endorsed the following United Nations proposal to call for international cooperation and effort to improve global health. This endorsement serves as a powerful reminder that health transcends borders and cultures, and that collective action is the key to tackling the myriad health issues facing our world today.

The world is no stranger to health crises. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the persistent threat of diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS, we are reminded all too often that health is a global concern. The Prince-Bishop’s support for the UN proposal highlights a crucial truth: health is not merely a matter of individual nations but a shared responsibility that requires collaboration on a grand scale.

The Church's role in this initiative reflects the moral and ethical obligation that religious leaders hold in advocating for the well-being of humanity. The United Roman-Ruthenian Church stands as a symbol of hope and compassion. By endorsing this UN proposal, the Church underscores its dedication to not only spiritual matters but also the pressing health needs of humanity.

Also, the endorsement comes at a time when the importance of faith-based organizations in public health is increasingly recognized. These organizations often have deep ties to the communities they serve, enabling them to address health disparities more effectively than many traditional governmental or non-governmental entities. The support of the UN initiative signals an acknowledgment of this potential, urging collaboration between faith-based organizations and public health systems to create a more robust response to global health challenges.

The proposal itself is a call for action for nations to come together in solidarity. It emphasizes the need for increased funding for health initiatives, the sharing of knowledge and resources, and the establishment of equitable healthcare systems. Such measures are not merely aspirational; they are necessary to ensure that every person, regardless of their geographical location, has access to the healthcare they need.

The endorsement also sends a message to political leaders around the world: health should not be a partisan issue. The challenges we face are too significant to be overshadowed by political divides. The initiative serves as a reminder that leadership in health must be unified, transcending nationalistic tendencies to foster a sense of global community. In a world where we often feel divided, this message is one of hope and unity. Indeed, it is imperative that the international community takes this endorsement seriously. The global health landscape is in dire need of innovative solutions and collaborative efforts. The Prince-Bishop’s voice adds an important moral dimension to this discussion, reminding us that health is a universal right, not a privilege.

__________________________________
Complete proposal text: 

Summit of the Future

Ensuring the primacy of human rights and effective accountability to

achieve the Sustainable Development Goals

United Nations Headquarters, New York

Sept 22-23, 2024

We the undersigned civil society organizations and experts call on world leaders to redouble efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals in the service of people and planet. The Pact for the Future negotiations recognize the need for more work, but reveal little concrete plans to make meaningful achievements.

Full and equitable realization of all human rights can be measured by equitable optimization of healthy life expectancy, which now ranges from national averages of 44 years to 74 years and typically varies domestically, reflecting internal social inequality. Deprivation, poor health and premature death obstruct the enjoyment of material and dignitary human rights and stoke tensions leading to armed conflict. While some improvements in sustainable development have been evident, some indicators have worsened. Conflict, climate change, and COVID-19 have impeded progress, but episodic setbacks pale by comparison to stark, inequitably felt, persisting harms.

Consider the following in future national actions to fully realize the Goals in the remaining six years:

1. Ensure the primacy of the actionable right to health, food, water, shelter, other fundamental human rights, and the collective right development. Of approximately 60 million deaths annually, half are attributable to entirely preventable causes, largely due to poorly regulated commercial products and services and inadequate critical water infrastructure. Prevention is more affordable and humane, but is less immediately politically gratifying and prone to resistance from commercially vested interests. If the right to health (Action 31) had prevailed over the pharmaceutical companies’ contractual and trade-treaty-protected intellectual property rights (Action 32), millions of COVID-19 deaths might have been prevented. COVID-19 led to nearly as many excess deaths per year (7.5 million) from 2020 to 2022 as World War II (10 million). WHO, Harvard School of Public Health, Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, and Lancet commission experts estimate:

malnutrition in all its forms causes 11 million deaths per year and nearly half of deaths of children under age 5,

tobacco causes 8 million deaths/years,

air pollution from burning fossil fuels causes 8 million deaths/year,

inadequate water supply, sanitation, and hygiene causes 3.5 million deaths/year,

alcohol causes 2.6 million deaths/year,

toxic chemicals and pesticides cause 2 million deaths/year,

suboptimal breastfeeding driven by promotion of breastmilk substitutes causes 823,000 deaths/year.

Six years have passed since the UN Human Rights Council mandated a working group to elevate the 1986 Declaration on the Right to Development to the status of a treaty. Ten years have passed since the Council mandated another working group to negotiate a treaty to help ensure that transnational and other businesses respect human rights and at least three more years of negotiations are anticipated. Justiciable, meaningfully enforced rights are foundations of the rule of law. Prioritizing human rights and restoring solidarity in acute and persistent crises commands swift responses. “Progressive” realization of rights cannot come to mean “weak” or “never.”




The UN Secretary General’s Group of Independent Scientists’ 2023 Global Sustainable Development Report concluded that the world is “far off track…Without urgent course correction and acceleration, humanity will face prolonged periods of crisis and uncertainty – triggered by and reinforcing poverty, inequality, hunger, disease, conflict and disaster.” Its 2024 report stated that, still: “On average, only 16 percent of the SDG targets are on track to be met globally by 2030, with the remaining 84 percent showing limited progress or a reversal of progress.”




A rights-based approach requires that legal and regulatory measures needed to achieve SDG should be included among targets and indicators.




2. Adopt a Code-of-Conduct for engaging with civil society as urged by 420 mainly ECOSOC-accredited NGOs calling for conflict-of-interest safeguards, ensuring access to information, a UN lobbying registry, and access to so many UN negotiations secreted from public view. NGOs need more tools to ensure that UN and government institutions are accountable for SDG promises they make in New York and capitals based on the best available evidence. See: http://tinyurl.com/UNConduct These important elements of access to justice are already implemented by many governments, nationally.

3. Specifically mandate relatable consumer warning labels about the SDG impact of commercially traded products and services, especially food, alcohol, tobacco, fossil fuels and the machines they power, the true costs of which equate to half of the global commercial economy (Actions 10, 53 and 54). Of the US$101 trillion global economy, people spend:

$10 trillion on food, including breastmilk substitutes,

$1 trillion on tobacco,

$1 trillion on fossil fuels,

$1.5 trillion on gas/diesel passenger cars, and

more on furnaces, cooking equipment, and other machines powered by fossil fuels.

The harms caused by many of these products more than doubles their market cost to equivalent to half of the global commercial economy, with most of the burden borne by the public sector, including harm to human health, reduced productivity of all industries, greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, and the largely uncalculated ravages child labour and unlivable wages. For instance:

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimated that global food systems imposed $12.7 trillion (in 2020 Purchasing Power Parity dollars) in externalized costs, due mainly to poor diet and greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant animals, especially cattle.

The International Monetary Fund estimates that the $7 trillion in “explicit” and “implicit subsidies” for fossil fuels (e.g., responding to pollution and greenhouse gas emissions) is seven-fold higher than market prices.

The WHO estimates the economic costs of tobacco to be US$1.4 trillion.

Experts estimate the costs of alcohol to the drinker and society at approximately US$2.6 trillion.

Consumer product and service labelling should reflect companies’ general legal duty to warn and could help shift purchases toward sustainable options. Measuring and reporting such information in meaningful ways at the point-of-sale should help populations better steer markets toward the SDGs. Likewise, national economic performance should be measured using true cost accounting (Action 54).

We cannot indulge years of private sector resistance, casting doubt on research, quibbling over warning language, or offering to tell the good news, but not the bad news. Much is already known by independent experts about the adverse impact of these products, but it is generally not communicated to consumers and is disputed by louder, misleading messages perpetuated by seller-designed halos. Consumption patterns must change before it is too late to cool the planet without catastrophic consequences and before human ill-health fetters development and squanders public social protection resources, human rights, and workforce productivity more than it already has.

4. Action item 4 (para 20(c)) urges raising Official Development Assistance to 0.7% of Gross National Income, revives a 1969 recommendation of former Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson’s United Nations Commission proposal.

That Commission’s goal would have been almost within reach for OECD countries if it had been pursued a decade earlier when Official Development Assistance was nearly 0.6% of Gross National Income in OECD countries. Instead, it fell by nearly half and remains so low 55 years later, even lower than the notoriously austere Reagan/Thatcher administrations in the United States and United Kingdom and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many high-income countries nearly doubled their national budgets to protect their own citizens, but Official Development Assistance rose only from 0.30% of total OECD GNI in 2019 to 0.37% in 2023, an average rise of US$0.02/capita/day for people living outside high-income countries:




Without meaningful increases in Official Development Assistance and significant debt forgiveness—a legacy of insufficient ODA—realizing the development potential of lower-income countries will be suppressed.

5. Financially support civil society SDG advocacy for on-going and formal annual evaluation and accountability for SDG progress, appointed at arm’s length with security of tenure until 2030. Governments and UN institutions should promote more frequent, independently funded fact-checkers from tenured academics and civil society organizations to report to Parliaments on national and global SDG progress. Reports should be ongoing and formalized at least annually. Waiting for mid-term reviews in 15-year missions to tackle existential crises of our time indulges procrastination and dampens accountability. Truly independent advocacy organizations are often starved for funds and lose their impartiality if they turn to discretionary grants from the private sector or governments that they are duty-bound to hold to account. Governments should commit to provide funding to support the work of a number of independent experts in proportion to their population (e.g., one expert per million population), appointed as officers of Parliament, appointed by courts, or funded by other arm’s length transparent means to enjoy security of tenure until 2030 and selected for demonstrated expertise in the 17 applicable SDGs.

Patriarchal Letter of Rutherford I to the Christian Faithful in the United States of America

from His Apostolic Highness Rutherford I
Prince-Bishop of Rome-Ruthenia

On the Feast of the Holy Mother of God of Kazan

21 July 2024

Dearly beloved sons and daughters in Christ,

As the United States finds itself in the midst of a contentious and divisive election season, I am compelled to address you, the Christian faithful of the United States, with a message of unity, compassion, and steadfast commitment to the teachings of our Lord.

In these turbulent times, when the world is watching the American election with bated breath, it is of the utmost importance that we, no matter where we are in the world, as followers of Christ, define ourselves not by the political affiliations or ideologies that so often seek to divide us, but by the unifying principles of our faith. To say that all people of another political party are evil or against Christ is a grave sin, for it paints with the same broad brush those who may simply have differing perspectives on the complex issues facing society today. Such rhetoric is not only un-Christian, but it also serves to further entrench the divisiveness that has gripped the United States and the world.

Dearly beloved in Christ, we must resist the temptation to make politics our church and a political party our religion, for to do so is to betray the very essence of our faith. Our faith calls us to love our neighbour as ourselves, to seek unity in the midst of conflict, and to see the image of God in all people, regardless of their political leanings.

As Christians, our primary allegiance must be to the Kingdom of God, not to any earthly kingdom or political party. We are called to be a beacon of hope, a voice of reason, and a force for reconciliation in a world that so often seems intent on tearing itself apart. I urge you, dearly beloved in Christ, to resist the siren call of partisan politics and to instead focus your energy and passion on the timeless truths of the Gospel. Let us be known not for our political affiliations, but for our unwavering commitment to the values of love, justice, mercy, and peace that our Lord himself embodied and proclaimed.

In this pivotal moment, when the future of American governance hangs in the balance, let us rise above the fray of partisan bickering and demonstrate to the world the transformative power of a faith that transcends the boundaries of political ideology. Let us be the salt of the earth and the light of the world, shining the radiant love of Christ into the darkest corners of our society. Let us be the peacemakers, the bridge-builders, and the reconcilers, that the brotherhood of nations might be healed and restored.

Dearly beloved in Christ, I call upon you to join me in this sacred mission, to be the change we wish to see in the world, and to be the living embodiment of the Kingdom of God, even in the midst of the chaos and turmoil that surrounds us. May the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you always.

Papa-Catholicos gives sermon on capitalism, communism, loss of values in society

By Jean DuBois

FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 12 November 2022 (NRom)

His Holiness Rutherford I, Papa-Catholicos of Rome-Ruthenia gave a sermon today on the situation in the world. In it Papa Rutherford said that it is not capitalism, but the Christian faith that is the solution to threats of communism and socialism. The Papa-Catholicos also discussed the rise of individualism and loss of Christian values in Western society. The audio record and complete text of the sermon are below.

TRANSCRIPT:

"Some say that capitalism is the solution to fighting communism and socialism. This, however, likewise leads to a treacherous path. Capitalism in its Christian form is often called distributism, in which there is a free market economy, but the means of production are spread as widely as possible instead of concentrated, and market forces and profit are not the only defining factors. In Christian commerce, individual benefit must be balanced against societal benefit and the impact of one's own actions on others.

Modern society continues to find ever-expanding ways to express its inherent selfishness and decline of values. Efforts in the world to destroy traditional society with its culture and values are aimed at the sole purpose of separating individuals from their faith. In that way they can more easily be manipulated by secular government and ultra-capitalist industry, for the people therefore come to lack the moral compass and the anchor that comes from our faith and our heritage.

What we see in particularly the Western world today is a complete abdication of the responsibilities that are inherent to us as human beings. It is the faith and our heritage that teach us that responsibility, so this outcome is no surprise.

There are those in the world who still espouse, feel, live, and promote their faith and traditional Christian heritage, however. There are those who risk all and fight for faith and justice. It is such people and such societies that should serve as an example to those who have lost their faith and should furthermore serve as beacons of hope and encouragement to those Christians around the world who find themselves in the minority, trying to scream the message of Christ into the hurricane of modern Satanic secularism. We know that hurricanes do not last forever, though, and so we must continue to remain strong and fight for the faith. Indeed, our faith tells us that the victory shall be ours in the end!"

The Arrogant Petulance Common among Clergy and Laity

FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 23 October 2022 (NRom)

H.H. Rutherford I, Papa-Catholicos of Rome-Ruthenia gave the following sermon earlier today regarding the behavior of clergy and laity causing so many to leave the church. 

Complete transcript of the sermon: 

     As Christians, we are called to try, despite the weakness of human frailty, to be as Christlike as possible. We are called to love our neighbours as ourselves. To facilitate this and more, Christ gave us the Church, which indeed does have the standards of the faith to maintain. However, there are those in the church, both clergy and laity, who choose to exhibit such arrogant petulance and such sanctimonious superiority and condescension that is absolutely no wonder that so many people over the years have either reduced their participation or left the church outright in disgust. There are, of course, various other reasons people leave - including the modernist influence inside various parts of the church and general secularism and antireligious sentiment in society at large. Yet, the church’s own people and even the church’s own leaders at times bear much of the responsibility.

     So often the leadership and laity of a particular division of Christ’s Holy Church are so puffed up with pride believing that they are the single ultimate world authority or the one true division of the church to which all others must bow. From the Vatican to the Eastern monasteries, to Canterbury Cathedral, and various autocephalous apostolic churches, both orthodox and catholic, from large to small, this arrogant attitude exists. Hypocrisy abounds.

     So often there is the belief that this group is legitimate and that group is not. Silly minutia becomes extrapolated into countless pages of meaningless drivel masquerading as academic writing. Do the authors of such nonsense realise that most clergy and certainly almost all laity could not care less about such things and may not even understand them at all? In their confusion, they wonder why people are focused on trivialities rather than important matters such as worship and prayer. The results are often that people either become disgusted with the stupidity and leave religion, or else they decide to follow along and become equally as hateful and harmful to others who are deemed by their leadership to be “outside of the group.” How sad. Christ surely must weep and Satan surely must rejoice as the people of God are split further and further apart by the pomposity of so many in the church. Pitting one Christian against another with a self-righteous attitude is indeed the work of the devil.

     There is but one church, though in the fallen, fractured state of mankind, it is no wonder that it is so divided and divisive today. In the early church, the church was divided among local churches – which were nothing more than parts of the whole, established under Apostolic authority for the better service of Christ’s people. There were disputes, of course, for that is, again, a typical byproduct of the fallen state of mankind. Yet, beginning especially with the Great Schism 1000 years ago, to the Protestant movement, to the secular, modernist movements of today, the church arguably has never been so divided. Why, then, do we seek to attack our brethren under the false label of charitable admonition? Why do we exclude when we should embrace? Why do we engage in vile calumny masquerading as righteousness?

     As the bishop’s so lead, being the shepherds in succession from the Apostles, the clergy follows their example. In turn, as the clergy lead, the laity follows their example. The bishops of the world must set a good example. They must extend their hand in Christian friendship to one and all and close the doors to none. This is not to say that any of us should adopt an “anything goes” policy. We each have the standards of the faith that we are to maintain, but those standards exist to help people get closer to God, not to push them away. The divisions of the church around the world will not be solved or healed overnight. We do not inherently have to compromise on our most sacred beliefs, but we should seek unity and cooperation rather than shutting the doors in someone’s face. I have seen this pathetic, cowardly behaviour among priests and laity alike – from countless jurisdictions. I have witnessed bishops attack each other, I have witnessed famous priests of the Vatican church openly sliming the reputation of others, and I witnessed seen people who claim to be Christians vilifying the faith of others… Why do they do it? For no other reason than it makes them feel good. It fills a void inside and makes them feel better about themselves through the putting down of someone else. Yet that void can never be filled by anything other than Christ, whom they themselves have excluded for whatever reason despite their outward pretenses of faith and religion. And so they continue trying to fill the endless chasm that is within them with more and more vilification of others.

     Indeed, such people may be deserving of condemnation, but much more than that they are in need of compassion and pity. What else can we do but pity someone who has such a low opinion of themselves that they seek to build self-esteem by tearing down others? If they had Christ, they would have no such need – and thus we can be filled with nothing but the greatest pity and compassion for them. Yet we cannot be blind to the great destruction to the church that they have done over the centuries and continue to do now, including being the root cause for many people leaving the church and even the faith altogether. That is a great and immense tragedy. None of us is omnipotent, and so we should each pray and find our own way to improve the situation through our own example.

Conquering Hypocrisy and Satan

FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 7 October 2022 (NRom)

On the Feast of Our Lady of Victory, His Holiness the Papa-Catholicos of Rome-Ruthenia, Rutherford I released the following pontifical letter entitled Conquering Hypocrisy and Satan.

“O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?” (Luke 12.56). Hypocrisy is a well-known trait – so much so that we perhaps have all become numb to it. We see it on an individual basis, and we see it in organisations and national governments. So often hypocrisy accompanies interfering in someone else’s business – an all-to-common individual and organisational trait. It is often even a national trait. Moral complacency – such as simply saying “hypocrisy is just a fact of life” – is moral complicity. On a societal scale, it is among the signs of a society that has given into satanic influences.

Hypocrisy on an individual scale can certainly cause problems for others. On an organisational, governmental, and global scale, however, the effects can be an humanitarian crisis and prolonged, escalated death and destruction. Conflict is an unfortunate but regular part of life. Between nations, cannon are the last argument of kings. Indeed, there is “…a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.” (Ecclesiastes 3:8).

Yet on both a large and a small scale, there are those who seek to interfere in the business of others, and there are those that, rather than live and let live, insist on trying to force others to live and act according to their rules and according to their permission. Such interference easily makes a difficult situation worse and a tense, dangerous situation even more deadly. As our Lord said, blessed are the peacemakers. Yet some come in the guise of a peacemaker, duplicitously bringing false promises contrary to God.

Interference becomes all the more complex when one party condemns another for doing the very same thing that they themselves have done on a regular basis. The one party says that whatever they do, no matter the cost to others, no matter the merits of the initial argument or the outcome, it is righteous and good. Then they condemn the other party for doing the selfsame thing. It is a double standard in the extreme. However, it is one thing when it is merely a complaint, for the dog barks and the wind carries it away. It is an entirely different thing when interfering actions cause real damage – even more so when the damage is on a very wide scale impacting countless lives.

Now, if a particular nation did something that they have come to believe is wrong, they might potentially be correct in speaking against it when it is done by others. For that to be genuine, however, there must be true contrition – an admission of guilt coupled with acts of reparation and atonement, as well as a strong resolve that such will never be done again. Yet, this is invariably lacking, as much of the world’s leadership climbs on a moral soapbox built on the blood and bones of the victims of their policies while pointing the finger at others.

Indeed, some people claw their way to their position, even through questionable and unethical behaviour. Upon reaching their goal, they say “I have mine, so a pox on you.” They set barriers and barricades to thwart others, create rules to prevent others from making the same achievements, try to rig the system so that their permission is required for advancement, and suddenly and hypocritically condemn in others the same questionable actions that got them to their position. This is not merely an individual phenomenon, but seen in organisations. It is regularly seen in nations.

So often the “developed” nations attempt to force hegemony on other nations, particularly developing nations. A developed nation may have done certain things in its rise to power that it now decides to condemn as wrong, seeking to stop such actions from being done by other nations in their quest for development and national advancement. That is inevitably done under some sort of benevolent-sounding heading, such as environmental protection, human rights, or even peace. Yet, “[the servants of Satan] disguise themselves as servants of righteousness.” (II Corinthians 11). The real purpose is power and control. At least in the age of kings and great empires, there was no pretense in the sense of what we see today. Motivation was arguably far more transparent and honest.

Indeed, in the age of kings and great empires in Christendom, for all its faults (for anything human will be flawed), underlying society was at least the firm footing of the Christian faith. Despite human frailty, laws, policies, diplomacy, and even warfare were built on a foundation of the Christian faith. As the Apostles tell us, works without faith are meaningless, and faith without action is no faith at all. Much of the world today has indeed lost its faith and become guided by satanic influences.

What can we do? First, we must learn to separate those things that we can control from those things that we cannot. Even the most powerful men on earth cannot control everything, no matter how they may try. Then we must seek on an individual basis to build our entire lives on the Christian faith. Everything we do, while still recognising our frailty as humans, must flow from the altar of God. We must encourage this in others, both by words and above all by our own example. Since society is comprised of individuals, individual faith and faith-based action can only serve to remove Satan from power and improve society as a whole. This then can improve government and world events. As our Lord said, “If you had faith like a grain of mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you.” (Luke 17.6.) Therefore, “put on the full armour of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes.” (Ephesians 6.11.)

Archfather: If you want to belong, invest.

FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 25 July 2022 (NRom)

H.H. the Archfather issued this pastoral statement today. 

     Too often people want to belong – to an organisation, a church, a nation, a relationship, a company, etc. – but they stop their efforts upon entering the door. It is generally impossible to “belong” without investing in the organisation. At the very least, you will not get as much out of your membership, job, relationship, etc. without investing. (And can one really imagine a successful marriage without both husband and wife being completely invested and actively engaged?) 

    People are often busy and have many commitments, but that is not inherently a reason not to be invested and engaged. Often people expect others to do the work and simply want to bask in the reflected glory or reap the benefits. 

     The simple fact is, though, that doing good for others will help you feel good about yourself.  If you do not think you have the skills to help your organisation, marriage, nation, church, company, etc., then it is a great opportunity for self-improvement (which should a lifelong process anyway). Far too often, people choose to say “I can’t” and therefore never achieve their potential. 

     In life’s endeavours just as in prayer, one must give to receive. Too often people seek to gain as much as possible for the least possible investment. Yet that is a fallacy. Although the problem is nothing new, modern society seems determined to promote laxity and mediocrity. One need only look to the abysmal standards of dress commonly seen today as a symbol of that, for how we dress is a reflection of how we view ourselves and what we believe. Sometimes to improve ourselves we must first change from the outside in. 

     Now, sometimes being thoroughly invested and engaged is a thankless job. Doing good is sometimes met with attacks and criticism. We should do so anyway. If we let such pettiness deter us, then we ultimately harm ourselves just as much as the churches, relationships, organisations, nations, companies and so forth to which we belong. 

Papa-Catholicos Responds to Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Ruling

FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 24 June 2022 (NRom)

The recent ruling by the US Supreme Court overturning the famous Roe v Wade decision has said that there is no constitutional, i.e., federal right to abortion in the United States. To those of us around the world of the Holy, Orthodox, Catholic, and Apostolic Faith, this represents a major step forward in the defence of life. However, it is not a complete victory, for the decision now simply seems to rest with the individual states that comprise the United States. Thus abortion will remain legal in many areas, and with great sadness We can only expect that over 1 million unborn children may continue to be murdered (and arguably martyred) within the United States each year. The faithful must continue to pray for this wholesale slaughter to end. At the same time, We reiterate that the faithful must be compassionate to those who are contemplating the sin of abortion so that the love of Christ may indeed turn their hearts. We also pray that neither side of this issue will resort to violence and uncharitable acts against their opponents, for that only deepens the conflict and makes reconciliation and a return to respect for life all the more difficult. Let us give thanks that the American Supreme Court has issued a ruling that is generally supportive of the doctrine of the Christian faith, and let of us continue to pray that society will learn to respect life in the example of Christ. Let us especially pray the rosary, that the intercession of the Blessed Virgin who chose life so that all mankind may have hope of everlasting life may turn the hearts of everyone.

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

FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 21 Nov 2021 (NRom)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.