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.

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

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.

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

 

FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 18 July 2021 (NRom)

Pastoral Allocution of H.H.E.

on the Importance of Character

18 July A.D. 2021

Feast of St. Camillus de Lellis

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

(Video below. Transcript continues below the video.)

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

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

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

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

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

Rear Admiral of the Patriarchate Receives Highest Honour from South Carolina Governor

By Jean DuBois

CHARLESTON 24 June 2021 (NRom)

Rear Admiral His Serene Highness Prince Randy Potts, Duke of Metz received the Order of the Palmetto from the Governor of South Carolina. The order is the State of South Carolina's highest civilian honour. It is presented in recognition of a lifetime of extraordinary achievement, service and contributions on a national or statewide scale. 

In the Stato Pontificio, Prince Randy serves as Rear Admiral of the Patriarchate in the Pontifical Walsingham Naval Guard. He is also Grand Master of the Noble Company of St. Mary of Walsingham. An Eagle Scout, he is also highly involved in the Boy Scouts of America. 

The Myth of Christian Democracy -- New Encyclical Released

FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 5 June 2021 (NRom)

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

The Myth of Christian Democracy

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

Carissimi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hypocrisy of Nations: New Encyclical Released

FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 4 June 2021 (NRom)

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

RVTHERFORDVS PP. I

The Hypocrisy of Nations

Carissimi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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