Satanic Media Attacks A Popular New Saint

This is not an endorsement of the questionable post-conciliar canonization process.

If I Were Pope, Here is How I Would Fix the Church

What would you do?

St Columba and the Loch Ness Monster

In today's video, I tell the story of St. Columba's incredible confrontation with the devilish Scottish beast. Read the full story in Angelo Stagnaro's excellent article:

St Columba and the Loch Ness Monster

From the National Catholic Register

Perhaps Nessie never existed. Or perhaps St. Columba managed to rid us of the monster permanently.

“The big blank spaces in the map are all being filled in,
and there’s no room for romance anywhere.” —Arthur Conan Doyle

On August 22, AD 565, 1,451 years ago, St. Columba had a story for the ages. For upon this fateful day, he made short shrift of the legendary Loch Ness Monster.

St. Columba was an Irish abbot, missionary and scholar who helped spread Christianity in Scotland. His actions ultimately made intelligible all the seemingly incongruous Catholic elements and motifs in both the Highlander and Braveheart films.

But this is only a small part of his résumé. He was also a statesman, a diplomat, an historical scholar, an author and a poet. He also founded many churches and monasteries. Both Scotsmen and Irishmen alike revere his name and are eternally grateful to him for civilizing their pagan ancestors and offering them Christ's promise of salvation and eternal reward.

Among his many non-monster-fighting accomplishments is the founding of multiple abbeys and monasteries — including the a famous one at Iona, which remained an important spiritual, academic, social and political institution for many centuries. He is highly regarded by both Scots and the Irish, regardless of their religious persuasion.

His Legend

We know about Columba's monstrous encounter because of his 7th-century biographer St. Adamnan's book, The Life of Saint Columba. Coincidentally, this is the first written account of the Loch Ness Monster.

While standing upon the bank of the River Ness which flows out of Loch Ness, in northern Scotland, Columba contemplated the best way to cross to the other side.

As he considered the problem before him, he came across a group of heathenish Picts who were busy burying a friend who had been attacked by an enormous “water beast” while swimming in the river.

When Columba got the gist of the story from the assembled mourners, he laid his staff across the dead man's chest and, miraculously, the man stood up, hale and hearty.

Against common sense, Columba ordered Br. Lugne Mocumin, one of his fellow monks, to swim across the loch and bring back a small boat known as a coble which was moored on the opposite shore.

Without hesitation, Lugne stripped off his tunic and immediately jumped into the water.

The monster, alerted by Lugne's splashing around, surfaced and raced towards the hapless monk, eager for a bite.

The monster roared a might roar, darting towards the swimming monk with its mouth wide open, as Lugne was in the middle of the stream.

Everyone on the shore cried out hoping to warn the monk of his impending doom. However, Columba was unmoved. Instead, the saint stepped forward boldly to the edge of the loch and, making the sign of the cross while invoking the Name of the Lord, spoke in a commanding voice.

"You will go no further!" he demanded of the monster. “Do not touch the man! Leave at once!”

Even though the monster was no more than a spear's length away from the swimming monk, at the sound of the saint's words, it stopped and immediately fled the scene terrified. As Adamnan described it, the monster moved “more quickly than if it had been pulled back with ropes.”

The monster quickly absconded to the depths of the loch behind him, allowing Br. Lugne to paddled the boat back unharmed. Everyone, including Nessie, was astonished. If the heathens at the funeral weren’t sufficiently impressed with Columba bringing their friend back to life, they were thoroughly impressed with how the monster obeyed the saint. They all gave glory to the God of the Christians. The Picts converted on the spot, being baptized in the very waters of River Ness.

But Columba's monks were probably a little surprised as well. According to St. Adamnan, the Irish monk was a veritable thaumaturge, producing hot and cold miracles as easy as turning on a faucet.

Among his lengthy miracle résumé, Columba prophesied regularly and cured the sick, disabled and lame. Once, when he didn't have wine for Mass, he miraculously changed water into wine. The monk also produce water from a rock, calmed storms at sea, conversed liberally with angels, subdued savage beasts (like boars and serpents), provided several fishermen with a bounteous catch of fish and brought peace to warring factions. He also multiplied a herd of cattle to the joy of the herd's owner and exorcised demons without batting an eye. In addition, a divine light seemed to follow him wherever he went.

On the down side, St. Adamnan's account was written over a hundred years after the alleged events so it's not easy to simply put all of one's trust in the totality of his legendarium.

His Life

Surprisingly, we actually know a great deal that is verifiable by other sources about this itinerant Irish monk. St. Columba, Abbot of Iona, was born in Garten, County Donegal, Ireland on Dec. 7, 521.

He belonged to the royal Clan O'Donnell in in Garten, County Donegal, Ireland. His father was Fedhlimdh and his mother was Eithne. He was the great-great-grandson of Niall of the Nine Hostages―an Irish king of the fourth century, on his father's side.

He was baptized Colum, which means “dove,” which was Latinized into the name we know him as: Columba. There's a bit of an odd, almost preternatural pun associated with his name. Apparently, he's also known by the name Colum-cille, which means “of the Churches” in Gaelic.

He was baptized by a priest named Cruithnechan at Tulach-Dubhglaise, which is now called Temple-Douglas. The priest later became his tutor and foster-father. When he grew older, Columba entered the monastic school of Movilla under St. Finnian, who had studied at St. Ninian's Magnum Monasterium (Latin: “Great Monastery”) on the shores of Galloway. It was there where the monk become a deacon.

He left Movilla and travelled to Leinster, where he became a pupil of Gemman the Bard. Upon completion of his studies with Gemman, Columba entered Clonard Monastery, situated on the River Boyne in modern County Meath, whose abbot was Finnian―a monk known for his great sanctity and erudition. Clonard was an important center of Christian erudition and spirituality. In fact, at its height, 3,000 scholars studied there.

It was here in the Clonard, where Bishop Etchen of Clonfad ordained Columba as a priest and where the later came to be known by subsequent historians as among the “Twelve Apostles of Ireland.” It was in this period of his life when the monk rubbed elbows with a panoply of other Irish saints including Sts. Mobhi, Canice, Comgall and Ciaran. In addition, other monasteries important to Irish Church history were founded at this time, including those at Derry, Durrow, and Kells.

Columba embarked on a pilgrimage to Rome, but due to the vagaries and vicissitudes of his otherwise hectic life, seemed to only make it as far as Tours, France where be procured a copy of the Gospels that had lain on the bosom of St. Martin for an entire century. He returned to Scotland with the relic and deposited it in Derry (Skene, Scotland).

According to the Venerable Bede, Columba left Ireland and passed over into Scotland in AD 563 for the sake of another pilgrimage, but there's evidence that he become involved with an internecine war in which his kinsmen were involved. In addition, he was upset that a rival had misappropriated one of his books. The argument centered on the right to copy his psalter. (i.e., Cathach of St. Columba)

This dispute led to the Battle of Cúl Dreimhne (c. AD 555 to AD 561).

Publishers, editors, journalists, authors and bibliophiles, please take note: This war was the first committed as a result of a copyright dispute.

Obviously, authors were made of sterner stuff back then―after all, Columba did dispel a monster. A literary agent wouldn't even have given him pause.

In addition, in 561, King Diarmait at Cooldrevny murdered Prince Curnan of Connaught, one of Columba's relatives, thus violating the right of sanctuary the prince claimed when he sought Columba's protection. Apparently, the prince had fatally injured a rival in a hurling match and had taken refuge with Columba. Diarmait's soldiers dragged the helpless prince from his protector’s arms and slew him, thus violating the rights of sanctuary. This didn't sit well with the monk. By his prayers, he supported the men of the North who were fighting while Finnian did the same for Diarmait's men. The latter were defeated, losing 3,000 men.

The deaths that resulted from these two prolonged conflicts brought St. Columba under heavy criticism. In fact, a synod of local clerics and scholars threatened to excommunicate him for these deaths, but St. Brendan of Birr defended him.

Columba, ashamed of what he had asked of God, confessed his sin to St. Molaise, his confessor. The latter imposed a particularly severe penance―to leave Ireland and preach the Gospel so as to gain as many souls for Christ as had been lost at Cooldrevny, and then to never again to look upon his native land.

History shows that Columba might have subsequently returned once to attend an important synod.

Thus, when Columba was 44-years-old, he departed Ireland as “a pilgrim for Christ.” Along with 12 of his monk companions, he crossed the sea in a wicker currach covered with hides. On the Feast of Pentecost, May 12, 563, they landed at Iona―a small island in the Inner Hebrides off the Ross of Mull on the western coast of Scotland. This later grew to become a major center of Gaelic monasticism for four centuries which is still a popular pilgrimage and retreat center. In fact, the island is still known in modern Gaelic as “Iona of St. Columba” (i.e., “Icolmkill”).

Once on the island, the monk and his companions built simple cells, a church and refectory and stayed there many years converting the Northern Picts. Together with Sts. Comgall and Canice (also known as Kenneth) he visited Brude, King of the Picts, at his castle near Inverness, Scotland but the pagan king refused them entrance fearful of the Christian's moral authority. The king's guards closed the castle gates and bolted them shut. However, mere moats, portcullis and ramparts mean nothing to a man who regularly tells sea monsters to back off.

Columba prayed and the gates flew open, as did the castle door. The bolts were useless in stopping the good monks from their evangelical mission.

The monks entered the castle unrestrained and the pagans, including the king, were in shock at the compelling power of Christ.

The king listened to Columba with reverence and was baptized. The rest of his court followed suit. This began the historical conversion of the people of Caledonia. The only opposition came from the Druids, who were afraid of losing their power base which was based solely on instilling fear in the pagans in their thrall.

For the next 32 years, Columba preached the Gospel to the people of Northern Scotland. Many more miracles followed in his wake.

It's said that Columba never went an hour without study, worship, prayer, writing or performing an act of mercy. When at home he was frequently engaged in transcribing books and treatises. He even did so on the night before he died. Throughout this life, he wrote 300 books. The originals of two of his most famous ones, The Book of Durrow and the psalter called The Cathach, are still preserved. The psalter is protected in an Irish shrine and was once carried into battle by the O'Donnells as a pledge of victory.

Columba died when he was 77 years old, surrounded by his disciples. He died as he stopped before the altar to meditate prior to a midnight service.

His monks buried him within the monastic enclosure. After about 100 years, his relics were disinterred and placed in a church. However, as Northmen and Danes often invaded the island, the saint's relics were brought to Ireland and kept in the church of Downpatrick.

His books and garments were held in veneration at Iona. They were exposed and carried in procession, and were credited as having worked many miracles (Adam., II, xlv). The stone pillow on which he slept is said to be still preserved in Iona.

Adamnan says of Columba: “He was angelic in appearance, graceful in speech, holy in work” (Praef., II). His voice was strong, sweet, and sonorous, capable at times of being heard at a great distance.

He was said to have an Irish temper and often got his Irish up. But after all, you can't rid a lake of evil, ravenous monsters by gently listening to their feelings and singing “Kumbaya.”

However, according to his biographer, his anger was reserved towards those who wronged others. (II, xxiii sq.) And, for the most part, the retribution that overtook the perpetrators of said crimes was predicted than actually invoked.

But despite his faults, Columba was definitely kind and humble to both brethren and strangers. He was also generous and warm-hearted, tender and kind even to animals that were attracted to him. He often spoke about the need to show kindness even to them.

He constantly fasted and kept long vigils into the night. Adamnan assures us Columba was beloved by all “for a holy joyousness that ever beamed from his countenance revealed the gladness with which the Holy Spirit filled his soul.”

And because of his great and noble work and his complete trust in the Holy Spirit, even non-Catholics venerate Columba today.

He is the patron of Derry, Ireland, protection against floods, protection against evil, bookbinders, poets, publishers, editors, authors, diplomats, statesmen, Ireland, Scotland and Ulster County. St. Columba’s feast day is celebrated on June 9.

The Loch Ness Monster

The pseudoscience of modern monster-hunting is called “cryptozoology” and has as much validity as does alchemy or bloodletting. I've never given much credence to the chupacabra, Bigfoot, the Pine Barrens Jersey Devil, UFOs, Atlantis or Mormonism. But it's fun to creep yourself out by indulging in these stories from time to time.

Extensive sonar searches of Loch Ness have turned up nothing more than an old movie-prop model of the creature. Alas, Nessie is no more.

Is the story of Nessie true? That is, had an evil monster lived in a lonely Scottish lake at one time and was it dispelled by the spiritual authority of a holy man? Sure. Why not? If this story was about a holy person exorcising a powerful demon, very few Christians would deny its veracity as in the cases of St. Anthony of Egypt or St. Francis of Assisi's struggles with such infernal creatures.

There's no reason whatsoever to think that Nessie wasn't a spiritual manifestation of supreme evil and that Columba's blessing served as an exorcism banishing him from this plane of existence.

However, the uncritical might be led to believe Nessie still exists as a living creature, even currently. This is highly unlikely, as Loch Ness and its tributaries could never produce enough food for a mated pair of inordinately large creatures living multiple generations from the sixth century down to our present times, having escaped notice successfully all of these intervening years.

Let's be content in accepting this delightful story about an historically-verifiable holy man who labored tirelessly in the Lord's vineyard for the greater part of his life and for the greater glory of God.

Perhaps St. Columba managed to rid us of Nessie permanently.

But as I mentioned earlier, sometimes it's fun to creep yourself out.

Will Catholics and Orthodox Unite in 2025?

Not unless we totally repudiate Vatican I and Papal Supremacy!

Brian McCall and Murray Rundus discuss the potential for the Catholics and Orthodox uniting with Patriarch Bartholomew hinting at a "big surprise" coming this year.

Church History Under the Duck Test: The Orthodox Have to Decide

The author, like me, is a convert from Orthodoxy to Byzantine Rite Catholicism and is now a Catholic seminarian, so he speaks with some authority on the subject.

From One Peter Five

By Maxim Grigorieff, MA

In his recent article, my dear friend and editor-in-chief of OnePeterFive, Timothy Flanders, made an insightful observation regarding the Catholic-Orthodox debate between two most distinguished gentlemen, Erick Ybarra and Denny Sellen, hosted by Mr. Matt Fradd who runs the Pints with Aquinas podcast on YouTube. He pointed out that while all parties should steer clear of vulgar triumphalism (that is, to say the least, indecent and utterly un-Christian),  for the conversation to be truly meaningful and productive, both sides must not only engage in mutual criticism but also present a positive vision – an alternative that is either demonstrable or potentially defensible against each other’s viewpoints.

Indeed, it has been the case for centuries that the Orthodox party denies and criticises certain aspects of the Catholic dogmatic and ecclesiological development (as well as the way the ancient Tradition and Church history is interpreted in Catholicism), while failing to come up with a clear independent vision for the same matters that would successfully compete with the one rejected as a fallacy.

An attempt has been made by Craig Truglia on Orthodox Christian Theology to dismantle this observation. This attempt is as triumphalist and aggressive towards the Catholics, as it is self-exposing, and can be summarised by quoting Mr. Truglia in these words:

Now, on face value, I think [what Timothy Flanders suggests] is understandable, but in short, we’re going to see why Denny Sullen couldn’t do this, because it takes a lot of time to unpack the Orthodox ecclesiology. Not because it’s difficult to grasp consensus-based ecclesiology. In fact, it doesn’t take very long. It’s because scholarship and the cultural zeitgeist is not aware of it and so you have to paint it with much more detail than you have to say Vatican I. Say Vatican I, people already have some good ideas that are 80−90% there. When I say consensus-based ecclesiology, even though a lot of people have seen my stuff for quite some time now, they’re still not quite sure.‘[1]

Essentially, Mr. Truglia admitts that Eastern Orthodoxy does not offer a well-developed and clear alternative to the Catholic paradigm that could be succinctly articulated to engage in a dialogue and potentially dominate it by quickly dismantaling the most elemental parts of the opponent’s discursive set-up. In other words, he admits that  Timothy Flanders is right.

But it is not the Orthodox theological community that he blames this thousand-years omission on. On the contrary, he blames it on the Roman Catholics and the ‘Zeitgeist’ rather than to his own Church. In the same lengthy podcast, he refers to Eastern Orthodoxy as the only true, living, teaching faith, explicitly excluding Roman Catholics and the Pope of Rome.

I do not see this argument as fair or decent. I would rather call it resentful.

Indeed, he who thinks clearly, speaks his mind clearly when he has to. Lutherans have their stance on the Eucharist and Salvation through Faith alone – they have the Book of Concord and the Augsburg Confession with some clear stances on these matters. Full-fledged Calvinists have their own alternative vision of double predestination and authoritative texts like the Institutes and the Canons of Dort. From the very beginning of their heresy (that started half a millenium after the Greek Schism) they have had their own, plain and simple vision of the Church, opposed to that of Catholicism:the “Invisible Church” united by ideas and methodology rather than any visible structures.

Mistaken as they all are, these Protestants have engaged in meaningful debates with the Catholic camp from their own methodological and doctrinal perspectives that are elaborate and functional enough to do so. They have some clear and precise points where they disagree with the Catholic Church, the dealbreakers that are very sound, as well as some real life – albeit completely heretical – alternatives to the Catholic claims and dogmas.

In contrast, Eastern Orthodox Christians are unable to engage in similar discussions by definition, as they have been affected by a schism rather than a heresy. Unable because ultimately unwilling. Mr. Truglia illustrates this distinction clearly, much like the Church history he examines in his podcast, (which I shall treat in more detail in a separate article, although I will dare to speculate on  Mr. Truglia’s unexplainable ‘consensus-based ecclesiology’ below).

The Papal Claim. “Tὸ τί ἦν εἶναι?”

The question of the essence of things has bothered humanity since the philosophers of old. Aristotle, to whom this quote belongs, was not the first to ask it. Even the pre-Socratics understood that true reality is located behind the veil of the visible. In his allegory of the cave, Plato showed how much the human conditions determine human knowledge of the Light, which is Truth itself, and that the process of comprehending the truth requires existentional transformation. Aristotle, the most famous disciple of Plato (and a more rationalistic philosopher), was more optimistic about human reason. He, whom St. Thomas Aquinas refers to exclusively as ‘the Philosopher,’ claimed the subject of knowledge to be being itself. He asserted that while knowledge begins with sensory perceptions, they are not sufficient to achieve the true knowledge he called scientific, for such things are changeable. This true scientific knowledge is based on concepts that grasp the essence of things. In his work on logic, the Philosopher created a method by developing forms of thought such as concepts, judgments, and syllogisms. This method is meant to help a human mind move from simple perception to abstraction up to the peak of scientific knowledge which can then be presented as the most reliable and logically justified. And this quality of knowledge is presumably accessible to anyone using the Method properly. This is the essence of logos as passed down from realistic Greek philosophy.

Aristotelian triumphalism and the overconfidence of Reason came to Europe through Arab philosophers during the High Middle Ages. Refined by St. Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas, this unassailable logos laid the foundation for the future rebellion of ‘skeptics’ —the Nominalists, Rationalists and Fideists of the Modern Age, first among Catholics, later especially among Protestants. The civil war between Faith and Reason over the Method continues to this day. What is known to Latin Trads as ‘Modernism’ is merely one episode in this conflict, which strives for a ‘just peace’ between Reason and Faith, Knowledge and Emotions, Positivism in science and Humanism in the realm of practical reason.

The relations between East and West have not remained untouched by these battles either, particularly regarding the question of the primacy of the Pope in the Universal Church. The question of the essence of things and the role of the will in the knowledge of truth is more acute than ever when it comes to Rome. If I am allowed to make a comparison, the whole situation with Roman Primacy and the Orthodox debate reminds me of a failed ‘duck test’:

The Catholic ‘realistic-logos’ argument: Look at this thing. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

The Orthodox ‘positivist’/’nominalist’ objection: ‘It has not been positively proven with absolute scientific precision without exceptions, therefore it is not and cannot be a duck,’ – says one apologist. ‘Besides, even if it looks like a duck, it’s possible that it could be something else or be even be nothing in reality (or at least nothing to us), since the whole “duck” concept is a construct invented by the Latins, framed and imposed on us by the Zeitgeist and the Western-dominated discourse,’ – concludes another.[2]

The Catholic question: So what is this thing, from your point of view? What could it be? For it is still there, quacking…

The Orthodox answer to this question is generally of three types. To illustrate these types, I shall provide only one example. One of the great heralds of icon veneration during the iconoclastic crisis on the East – St. Theodore – seems to have believed in the primacy of the Roman Pontiff in a very Catholic manner, sharing this concept with St. Pope Paschal and at least four other abbots of the Greek Church:

‘In truth we have seen that a manifest successor of the prince of the Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here (Constantinople), for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. You are, indeed the untroubled and pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, you the God-chosen city of refuge.’[3]

And again:

‘Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ’s sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of Peter. Hither, then, from the West, imitator of Christ, arise and repel not for ever (Ps. xliii. 23). To thee spake Christ our Lord: ‘And thou being one day converted, shalt strengthen thy brethren.’ Behold the hour and the place. Help us, thou that art set by God for this. Stretch forth thy hand so far as thou canst. Thou hast strength with God, through being the first of all.’[4]

The same saint also seems to have shared this belief with the Emperor, or at least he was sure that the latter shared or would share it with him, for otherwise St. Theodore wouldn’t write to him the following:

‘Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven.’[5]

‘Let him [Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople] assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See.’[6]

‘Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highests of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: “Thou art Peter …and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’[7]

For the sake of convenience, I have cited only a few quotes of one particular Church Father from the times of only one Ecumenical council: the last one of the seven recognised by Russian Orthodoxy (7th of 21 in Catholicism). Church history consists of similar and even more telling arguments and testimonies from the pre-Nicene dawn of Christianity, and till the last day, both the Orthodox and the Catholics agree to share (and beyond). It is literally filled with such examples, packed through with them, so that the portion discussed by Mr. Ybarra and Mr. Sellen in an hours-long conversation is not much bigger than the piece we can discuss in this small article, compared against their absolute volume.

The Catholic take on St. Theodore is the following: this and similar evidence speaks of the special authority and role of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter, who historically has refined and taken increasingly concrete forms of influence on the contemporary teaching and practice of the Catholic Church.

The spectrum of the Eastern Orthodox answers to St. Theodore (and indeed all Papalist remarks of this kind from the saints) fall into these three types:

1) Plain Denial

The most problematic response is the outright denial of historical truth, coupled with a shift towards radical positivism that borders on skepticism. This approach is particularly detrimental because it establishes a double standard when evaluating historical documents—favoring one’s own while dismissing those of the opponents. Such reasoning is characteristic of low-level apologists one may have come across on the internet and even in the literature. A more sophisticated apologist would rather downplay or ignore the quacking thing without explicitly denying its existance. Sometimes such a speaker would even mention the same historic figures to provide an alternative example (not a proposition), in order to mildly undermine the Catholic argument without directly confronting it, which takes the following form:

• The Catholic: St. Leo the Great did A, B, C;
• The Orthodox: St. Leo the Great said D, E, F.

The content of the Catholic argument is ‘cancelled’ by substitution, while the  pretended ‘counter-argument’

• acquires authority of the source first applied by the opponent (ethos)
• since it comes chronologically after the Catholic argument, it is shown as having successfully answered this argument (pathos).

As you can see, there is no Logos, the presence of which is absolutely necessary, since it is the Logos that is πρὸς τὸν θεόν. Neither Ethos nor Pathos can pass the duck test without Him.

To pay Mr. Sellen due respect, he did not use either of these strategies. Unfortunately, the second one appears to be Craig Truglia’s tactic he used on the abovementioned podcast.

2) Self-Defeating Cynicism

Within Orthodox discourse, there exists a particularly insidious danger known in Russia as  ‘the Byzantine flattery.’ According to this line of thinking, the numerous testimonies of the Eastern Fathers as well as the local and Ecumenical councils of old – that referred to the Roman Pope as a special bishop and the successor of St. Peter  – are to be dismissed as mere diplomatic embellishments, tactical lies, and empty flattery. The argument suggests that the Fathers flattered the Popes to secure what they deemed to be Orthodox doctrines, all while harboring little genuine faith in this opportunistic theology of ‘Instrumental Papism’ – the virtual reality they created by their own hand. Consequently, after defeating seven heresies in Seven Councils, these Fathers inadvertently created the super-heresy of Papism – something their successors and heirs in Faith now known as the Eastern Orthodox would later compare to Arianism, fighting to death that Dragon from the Book of Revelation:

Of these heresies diffused, with what sufferings the LORD hath known, over a great part of the world, was formerly Arianism, and at present is the Papacy. This, too, as the former has become extinct, although now flourishing, shall not endure, but pass away and be cast down, and a great voice from heaven shall cry: It is cast down (Rev. xii. 10).[8]

The very crocodile that the Eastern Fathers nurtured and fed to use against their enemies ultimately turned on them, much like the Roman Empire, which recruited barbarian tribes to defend its borders only to be overrun by those same defenders. Tragically, many of Orthodoxy’s brightest minds, unwilling to accept the natural consequences of the evidence they have uncovered, remain vulnerable to this spiritual peril. What are the consequences?

While this cynical argument may preserve the Eastern Orthodox option to stay apart from the Catholic world, it fundamentally undermines Christianity itself. Indeed, if yesterday all the Fathers and Councils flattered the Roman Pope by calling him the Head of the Church and the successor of Peter (even in prayers and Church services!), who can guarantee that they had not similarly flattered Our Lord Jesus Christ by proclaiming Him God of God, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο?

A smaller argument that belongs to this category claims that all the canon laws and lawful customs of the Church that reflect or regulate the Papal authority over all the other Churches particularly in regards to judiciary issues[9] completely belong to the ‘positive law of the Church,’ understood as purely accidental, man-made and arbitrary, absolutely non-reflective of any divine law or revealed truth about the nature of the Church as pre-designed by her Head Jesus Christ.

Despite all the patristic and liturgical references to the Gospels and the mission of St. Peter (preliminarily dismissed as mere ‘flattery’), it was in 2013 when the Russian Orthodox Church articulated its official position on primacy in a document titled ‘The Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Question of Primacy in the Universal Church.’[10] According to the Russian Orthodox Church’s stance, the source of primacy at the level of the Universal Church is ‘the community of autocephalous Local Churches, united in one family by a common confession of faith and existing in sacramental communion with one another.’ This primacy is said to be defined in accordance with the tradition of ‘sacred diptychs’ that are also called the source of the primacy[11] at the universal level and is characterised as a primacy of honor (as opposed to any power or actual authority).

How can a ‘sacred diptych’ – a mere document that reflects the order of the Churches – be a source of primacy? The document admits that the diptych serves merely as a symbol of an order that was formed in the Church accidentally – optionally, rather than through any obligation.

What the authors of this document fail to consider is the following:

If we assert that primacy at the highest level of the Church is merely an accidental outcome of history, then the first casualty of this reasoning will be the authority of the Patriarch, which could be abolished as easily as it was historically established. This could also lead to a decline in the power of bishops, since the so-called ‘solid theological justifications’ become less robust. The historical criticism applied to dismiss an entire layer of papal primacy theology can be redirected to the lower levels.

Additionally, if there is no functional primacy on the highest level of the Church we see as a God-established entity, it seems that no such principle should be considered absolute or even good on any of its sub-levels, which opens the gates for Protestantism that is already eating out the Eastern Orthodox theology from within[12] with an equally questionable alternative about Jesus Christ having created no One Church, but rather one Local Church that started to divide by budding, creating a forest of individual trees rather than a single vine with branches (John 15).

Besides, the very concept of the primacy of honor sounds completely alien to Christianity. According to the New Testament, power is service, and service implies specific powers. This is what Jesus Christ said about those who desire primacy (Matthew 20:26). On seeking honour, He spoke quite differently[13]…

This corrosive notion of ‘instrumental cynicism’ and the ‘primacy of honour’ was presented to me within the Russian Orthodox Church when I began asking questions. I rejected it in favor of a positive understanding of Tradition and the Gospel, ultimately becoming an Eastern Catholic. After that I continued talking to my Eastern Orthodox brethren, and some of them were quite sympathetic to Catholicism, holding to a third answer.

3) Non-Binding Mitigation

The most ‘Ecumenical’ and thus least polemical response to the Catholic claim would be one akin to that of Ubi Petrus in its discussion with Erick Ybarra. This response acknowledges the existence and some weight of all historical evidence supporting Papal authority and Roman primacy, but argues that the formulation of the Roman dogma, or at least its recent version and implementation, is too extreme. Such a polemicist would advocate for a more nuanced approach to Papal primacy and its representation.

But how exactly? The answer is always very vague, if it is given at all. The weakness lies in its failure to offer a positive alternative to the Catholic interpretation. When such an alternative emerges in discourse, Orthodox inquiries tend to receive Protestant, Conciliarist, or Catholic responses, thereby opening up something approximating the ‘Ecumenical dialogue’ that an Orthodox Trad wouldn’t like to even start for the fear of losing identity or falling into heresy. To overcome this fear, knowledge of history, love for the separated brothers and trust in God are essential. And for these qualities being essential on their own, it is reversely essential to try to overcome this fear and think of an alternative, meditating on what it means to be Orthodox.

Updating the discussion

Typically, when addressing papal primacy, questioning Orthodox polemicists target the ultramontanist interpretation of Vatican I as if no doctrinal or theological development has occurred since then, remaining stuck in the past. That is why Mr. Sellen’s most successful argument against Erick Ybarra was that the latter ‘defends the minimalistic interpretation of Pastor Aeternus.’ What he fails to realise (and his vis-a-vis doesn’t seem to underline) is that this ‘minimalism’ is not a forced compromise, but a full-fledged Catholic position as opposed to the ‘false spirit of Vatican One!’

Many Catholics, especially among the Trads, fall into this trap as well; they often reduce the significance of Vatican II to liturgical reforms and aggiornamento, overlooking substantial insights found in ‘Lumen Gentium’ and other teaching documents from the Council that emphasise the horizontal dimension of the episcopal college, promote cooperation between bishops and their presbyteries, defend Eastern autonomy, and encourage laity participation in the Church’s mission.

Most of the Orthodox apologists, including Mr. Craig Truglia, share the same false idea: they think that according to Catholic doctrine the Pope and the Church are different subjects, separate entities between which there is a dichotomy and a fair bit of antagonism. Misled by a de-contextualised formula of the dogma established by the First Vatican Council (a Council that was interrupted and left unfinished to begin with), these men can perceive the true meaning of Vatical I through the Second Vatican Council that did accomplish the mission of formulating the Church’s teaching on her own nature, explicitly and authoritatively explaining that:

• the Pope is the head of the college of apostles, and not a dictator;
• the entire college of bishops has infallibility when they teach something together and definitively in communion with each other around Peter;
• An ‘Ex Cathedra’ statement is when the Pope uses the infallibility of the Church, speaking for the entire Church, like Peter when he answered the question of Jesus addressed to all the disciples;
• bishops are vicars of Jesus Christ, not of the Pope;
• Councils are an important part of the life of the Church, and that there should be more of them.

Of course, the retrospective historical knowledge of the First Vatican Council and its formulations, which are still perceived in a distorted way, should help, but that would never be enough.

I believe it is time for Orthodox and Catholic apologists, who currently operate alongside the official ecumenical dialogue between the Churches, to move beyond the conceptual boundaries established in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. We need to engage with the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent papacies, all the way up to the latest synodal documents on the matter, and  see all the true Orthodox insights better formulated and implemented under the supposed ‘Yoke of  Popery’: Councils, synods, rights of the bishops, subsidiarity within the Church. Whether or not this paradigm is followed in practice, is another matter, although it ultimately is (for 21 Ecumenical Councils…), especially when compared to other Churches that raise these slogans on banners, all the Orthodox Churches in particular

Why take a risk?

Ultimately, our goal is to foster unity and dialogue with our real brothers in their present circumstances, rather than with mere ghosts or memories of the past. What are these ghost memories? The absolutist papacy of the Baroque era, a militarized and uniform Church that emphasised fatherhood (indeed, masterdom) over brotherhood, neglected  councils and despised in practice the horizontal dimension of the Church (an excess that was almost necessary, given the Protestant crisis, but it was still an excess that would further alienate the East). This image should be neither defended nor criticized, for it does not accurately reflect historic reality, thus being not just a memory, but a ghost. But even if it should be more accurate than inaccurate, we have to know the Church and her magisterium as of today: the Vatican II ecclesiology, synodality and subsidiarity that is applied to exercising power on various levels of the Church that come along with the Petrine primacy and Papal authority.

Both Catholic and Orthodox polemicists must dare look at the face of the real Church and deal with it, even if it means throwing away all the traditional stances and legacy arguments, all the familiar rhetoric techniques we have used for the last couple of centuries. One may even argue, it is a good sign for true scholasticism if the textbooks get outdated. But most importantly, we have a moral obligation to take this risk for the sake of the Truth, sacrificing all the intellectual comfort of a never-ending and well-predicted battle, in which soldiers die in and from which generals benefit. And God forbid we count among either.

The same demand applies to the post-schism innovations within Orthodoxy, which many Orthodox brethren will often overlook or deny for ideological reasons, and many Catholics, out of oversimplification and mythologising. These innovations are undeniably significant in our dialogue as we strive for unity that can only be based on Truth. Only in this way can our guild of apologists get out of the unreality of the Internet and make a living contribution to the official Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, carrying the burden of political correctness and a yoke of bureaucracy.

Do we really want to achieve unity, not to go on with this endless battle and take pleasure in division until Jesus Christ comes back to this earth?

Time to Decide

After all, a clear-eyed assessment must be directed at all the canons and decrees used in polemics and presented by each side to their opponents. I believe the Catholics did their part by always being willing to work towards a better understanding of primacy and synodality, to amend laws, and to clarify the magisterium in order to reach the separated East. For centuries, they have sought to offer various visions of unity on various councils. It has never been perfect, but, what is more important, those attempts have never ceased.

Now it is high time the Orthodox made a decision. Are the ‘canonical’ Orthodox patriarchs prepared to seriously consider not only the Pope’s proposals and the Catholic interpretation of synodality but also their own anti-Catholic arguments, ecclesialogical drafts and insights regarding the ‘Consensus Church’? Are they willing to try on these various perspectives themselves and commit to one of them by:

• following the so-called ‘Apostolic rules,’ they impose on the Westerners (who never knew this local 5th century Syrian tradition)?
• giving back real power and voice to individual bishops, returning to some pre-Pentarchic times?
• accepting the role of Rome as an ultimate arbiter in the Universal level?
• holding fast to ‘the communion with the Apostolic See’ even to the point of rejecting the current Pope as a heretic but keeping loyality with Rome, like the Eastern Patriarchs did under Justinian?
• or are they willing to re-establich this Apostolic See, to elect their own ‘Orthodox’ Pope (like the Catholic East reestablished the Sees of Antioch and Alexandria after the Copts and Assyrians fell into heresies), rejecting a couple dogmas imposed by  obviously partisan Ecumenical Councils supported by the See of Rome? (They have been able to do it all along, at least symbolically and in a titular manner, still they didn’t do it;)
• or, on the contrary, being ready to re-consider their relations with these Oriental Churches, revise the dogmas that were definitelty not established by this rainbow spirit of absolute consensus, like those of the Ephesus, the Chalcedon (which were rejected by millions of Orthodox Christians)?

I would not bet on any of those outcomes, because at least for the last couple of centuries the whole anti-Catholic rhetoric sounds more like empty talk that is supposed to not really lead anywhere, but to cover up the reluctance to any unity and secure the status quo.

At the Cretan Pan-Orthodox Council (2016), where most of the ‘official’/’canonical’ Orthodox Churches were represented,[14] and the militant anti-Catholic precedents of the past could have been reaffirmed. So this ‘consensus ecclesiology’ could have been accomplished in separate official documents of the Russian and Greek Churches. It would indeed have been possible to label Catholics as heretics. Moreover, given such a weighty historical context, it would not have been difficult to justify a complete abandonment of ecumenism and the rapprochement that began in the 1960s, thereby halting official dialogue with Rome or redirecting it towards discussing this or that ‘heresy.’ However, none of the official Orthodox Churches took this route, despite facing repeated schisms with radical anti-Catholic factions in Russia and Greece. Nonetheless, no significant steps were taken in the opposite direction either, as if there is not enough motivation to be cold or hot.

For now, neither most of the Orthodox hierarchs, nor the majority of theologians seem to understand that preserving the shallow status quo is the mistake that is repeated each time it is prefered, a perpetual error that makes you rot slowly, while taking a risk provides a fair chance of success even statistically, and a better chance for an unprecedented triumph, spiritual revival of united Christianity and mutual healing between the East and the West… when guided by the Holy Spirit that dwells upon us across the latitudes.

The choice faced by the Orthodox is truly Shakespearian: to be or not to be. ‘Not choose not to be’[15] – an answer so cherished by a shaking human soul that wishes ‘my chaff might fly; my grain lie, sheer and clear’ – is an option no more  after God, Whom we ‘wretch[es] lay wrestling with,’ spilt His Blood for us, once we see this Blood equally anointed on the foreheads of ours and those of our separated brothers.

What about the Catholics?

The choice faced by the Catholics is no less dramatic. The hierarchy and all the  church bureaucrats engaged in the official ecumenical dialogue now seem to act according to Sonnet 58:

I am to wait, though waiting so be hell
Not blame your pleasure, be it ill or well.

At the same time, many of faithful Catholics including the Latin Trads are irritated looking at this pitiful scene: Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends. But as soon as this thy son was come…  (Luke 15:29-30) But… Oh if he had come! He didn’t yet.

‘The Eastern schismatics haven’t even come to you, Holy Father, and yet you treat them better than you treat us, for you banned the Mass we love so dearly, lay a lion limb against us?’ – a Trad may cry to the Pope. He would see that the ‘ruling party’ of the Church will many times abuse the image of the active and loving Father who searches for his son both by lips and in practice. Yet the ‘opposition’ suffers as well, breading resentment.

How can we all come to the perfection of the Gospel parable?

The Prodigal Son and the Traditional Latin Mass

The parable of the prodigal son is truly an example of perfection for us. It has been used for ages, but we must take into account all the details. We see that the Father’s merciful attitude toward the prodigal son is directly related to justice toward both children: ‘Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.’  It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.’ (Luke 15:31-32)

One may argue that Church authorities, especially the Roman Pontiffs, should not simply sigh for the separated sons like Shakespeare’s lyrical hero sighs for unrequited love, enjoying watching them from afar. No, they should actively seek for them. However, it is not the entirety of the matter. Church history and personal experience show that the Orthodox, who do not particularly like to hear about the prodigal son as a metaphor for their ecclesiastical condition, as they very closely monitor the state of the ‘elder sons’ of the Catholic Church  – be them the Uniates of old or the Latin Traditionalists of today. Some Orthodox do see themselves in their state, trying this role and asking questions. Will there be a forced Latinization, the destruction of ritual diversity, violence or injustice towards those who are not Latin rite? The more evidence of such atrocities they behold, the less they believe in the mercy of the Holy Father with more and more prodigal sons from the West leaving for a distant Eastern country.

In this difficult situation, it is important that the older sons, having found themselves one foot in the Gospel, the other in the story of Noah, should take on a dual active role appropriate for both stories, namely covering the nakedness of the Father, staying loyal to the Tradition that includes the respect for the Holy Father (beyond a false “primacy of honour”), while never ceasing to search for the lost brothers so that they can come home. So they can want to come home, feel loved and needed. So that the truth does not used as a weapon against hearts, but heals our Christian family.

May the yearning for unity, which once tormented the Holy Fathers of the Church, illuminate our hearts and guide us in love toward this truth, within which may we find the freedom that belongs to the children of God and brethren in Christ.

---

[1] Emphasis mine. “The Orthodox Papacy: Who’s Right?” URL: https://youtu.be/D7YUE0-Ez0c?si=w7YiFHDGblJTZ87a

[2] All similarities with real Orthodox apologists are an attempt to summarise their actual argumentation.

[3] St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople [A.D. 759–826] Letter of St. Theodor & Four Abbots to Pope Paschal. Here and below the English text cited from: https://www.iamchristianmedia.com/ru/papacy/st.-theodore-the-studite

[4] Letter of St. Theodore and four other Abbots to Pope Paschal, Bk. ii Ep. 12, Patr. Graec. 99, 1152–3

[5] Theodore, writing to Pope Leo III, Bk. I. Ep. 23 [Patrologia Graeca 99]

[6] Theodore the Studite, Letter to Emperor Michael, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420

[7] Theodore, Writing to Emperor Michael of Constantinople, Bk. II. Ep. 86

[8] “Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs.” 1848. A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, “to the Easterns.” URL: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

[9] Like those issued by the Eastern Council of Serdica or reflected in the Western Councils of Carthage.

[10]‘Позиция Московского Патриархата по вопросу о первенстве во Вселенской Церкви’, URL: https://www.patriarchia.ru/article/94891

[11] Ibid, translated from the Russian language: ‘The source of the primacy of honor at the level of the Universal Church is the canonical tradition of the Church, recorded in the sacred diptychs and recognized by all autocephalous Local Churches.’

[12] The Constantinopolitan concept of primacy is equally rooted in history and lacks solid theological justification. However, it is more coherent in its view of the church’s unity, as it treats all levels of authority as uniform regarding the distribution of primacy and power. For the Greeks, the Patriarch of Constantinople is considered the primus sine paribus, but this status is largely a result of historical circumstances, particularly the schism with Rome and the subsequent need for a first bishop at the universal level. See: ‘Primus sine paribus: Ἁπάντησις εἰς τὸ περὶ πρωτείου κείμενον τοῦ Πατριαρχείου Μόσχας. Τοῦ Σεβασμιωτάτου Μητροπολίτου Προύσης κ. Ἐλπιδοφόρο’ URL: https://ec-patr.org/primus-sine-paribus-pantisis-e-s-t-per-proteioy/

[13]‘When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him; And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room. But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.’ (Luke 14:8-11)

[14] Despite these Churches accounting for only half of the Orthodox believers.

[15] “Carrion Comfort” by Gerard Manley Hopkins

Pictured: Roman Emperor Justinian

Lenten Feria

Today's Holy Mass from Corpus Christi Church, Tynong AUS. You may follow the Mass at Divinum Officium.