Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

The First Apology: Adversus Scismam Bonifacii

Recommended Posts





New] The 10 All-Time Best Home Decor (in the World) - Benedict XV. . . . .  #Catholic #Church #catholicchurch #catholicism #f… | Catholic church,  Catholic, History

His Holiness, James II, High Pontiff of the Canonist Church; True and Legitimate Successor of the High Priesthood.




It would be superfluous, in a volume such as this, to reckon up and  respond to each and every accusation made by Boniface in this Forty-One Theses. Many of them concern Church politics. I am a simple Priest, and even of that I am unworthy, and so I have made a point never to seek rank or advancement, nor involve myself in secular or ecclesial politics. I am a steward of souls, not a counter of coins. It is Boniface’s soul, and those he is leading into Schism, that concerns me - those I would save, and all else is irrelevant to me. Even if I had an interest in that manner of happening, I have no knowledge: and I will speak on the things vouchsafed unto me by God, rather than flapping my tongue on matters I know nothing about. Therefore, for the sake of argument, I grant each and every one of the non-doctrinal allegations made by Boniface in this Apology, simply because I am entirely ignorant, and even if they are true, even if things were worse, they would not begin to justify the course of action he has taken, nor the false doctrine he preaches. 


I am aware that Boniface does not agree with my manner of conduct, and he accused me of harshness when I wrote a letter on the Sacred Priesthood, which anathematised false doctrines. But the Church is intolerant in principle because she believes; she is tolerant in practice, because she loves; her enemies are tolerant in principle because they do not believe, and often-times are intolerant in practice, because they do not love. I am a Canonist and a Priest of the Church. As a Canonist, I love, and therefore tolerate. As a Priest, I teach, and therefore do not tolerate. This is a fact that Boniface has forgotten; that is where he and the Pontiff differ. I am willing to forgive malpractice because I, too, am a sinner, but I will not tolerate false doctrines. When the Church rightly condemns false doctrines as her Prophetic duty, as I proved in my Tract on the Sword of Owyn, he complains of tyranny, but when the Church tolerates certain instances of sin, he complains of laxity. He has it the wrong way around. It is in sin that we ought to be tolerant, for we, too, are sinners. But in error, the Church ought to admonish and anathema, for she has no false doctrine, but is the sole dispenser, intepreter and receiver of that Revelation vouchsafed unto her by Almighty God. For that same Owyn that fell into grave sin wrote “There cannot be laxity in faith for any reason.” (Spirit 2:13) The Church can sometimes tolerate sinful men for she wants to save their lives and forgive them, but she can never tolerate erroneous doctrines precisely because she wants to save their lives. If a man were to steal a mina from me, I shall forgive him, for God is Love. (Proverbs 5:1)  If a man were to preach a false doctrine to me, I shall rebuke him, for God is Truth. (Proverbs 1:2) And this is exactly the task which is before me now. I remain in that task, as ever, your humble servant,


Fr. Pius, Priestly Fraternity of Saint Kristoff and Jude. 


Note: Since I began writing this volume, Boniface wrote his proposals for reform. I confess that there are many excellent reforms, which any man concerned with justice and truth ought to consider. However, even the most admirable and excellent reforms of all time would not justify a single, tiny sin. His ends may be good, but the means are not justified thereby; the means of Schism and irreverence are not the means by which true reform is achieved. Only inside the Church, can these things be done. 


Point I.To Reject the ‘Virosi Church’ and Yet Claim to be a Member of the Church, is Nonsensical; Irreverence Against the Pontifical Office is a Sin.


Boniface claims he is a member of the Church, but then rejects the “Virosi Church”, irreverently referring to the High Pontiff by his birth name, Godric Virosi. (See Section XXXII.) Boniface has repeatedly done this in public, in order to justify his schism. Boniface rejects the Pontiff’s authority to rebuke him, as he is convinced that he is in the right. Boniface remains convinced that he is in the Church despite rejecting the current High Pontiff (de facto: by basically ignoring his decrees and considering his excommunication invalid whilst irreverncing his office), whose Sacred Office he disdains, and against whom he is guilty of a gross and sinful irreverence. As I have often explained to him, personal failings on the part of James II are irrelevant. When we call him James II, Holy Father, or His Holiness, it is not Virosi the man we reverence, but rather James the Pontiff.


I)first, the sin of irreverence. The Seat of the High Pontiff is an holy seat, holier than all of the Bishops put together. The High Priesthood was established by God’s command, through the Prophet Owyn. (Gospel 5:3) The High Priest, therefore, is specially entrusted as an inheritor of the Prophetic Office. This office is to be reverenced and respected at all times under pain of sin. For did not Owyn commit the gravest of sins, and yet God said unto him: “but you remain My Prophet?” (Gospel 4:56.) As I wrote before to the same Boniface: “the man Owyn failed; the Prophet Owyn triumphed.” No man would have been justified in rejecting the authority of Owyn, even in his state of grave sin, nor would any man have not been sinning if he absurdly and deliberately avoided reverencing the High Priests Everistus and Clement, on the basis that they were appointed by a kinslayer. For Owyn was appointed by God, and the High Priests by God, through Owyn. Now since something is called “holy” in proportion to its relation to that “Holy, Holy, Holy” (Saint Kristoff), so the Office of the High Pontiff, since it is the successor of this High Priesthood (As can be read in any Bull, including by Pope Saints Daniel I and Everard IV), is the most holy seat on earth. So that if any man disrespects this seat and sows schism against it, he contravenes the commandment: “You shall not blaspheme My word, nor anything that is holy.” (Virtue 1:8) Hence to deliberately undermine and irreverence the office of the High Pontiff, James II, while he is yet in that office, is to sin against faith. I shall put this in unavoidable syllogism. 1.The current High Pontiff is James II. 2.The High Pontiff is the Successor of the High Priesthood. 3.The High Priesthood is Instituted by God. 4.Therefore, the High Priesthood is holy. 5.Therefore, the seat of the Pontiff is holy. 5.Therefore, to be irreverent toward the office of the Pontiff and refer to him in such base terms, is a sin against faith. What James II may or may not have done is irrelevant. He is the legitimately elected Pontiff of the Canonist Church. Such blatant and prideful behaviour is clearly sinful.


II)Secondly, the claim to reject the “Virosi Church” is a schismatic act, and an absurd case of having one’s cake and eating it too. Do you think that the hierarchy of the Church is like a leg or an arm, something that can be hacked off and that she would still remain what she is? No! The hierarchy is an intrinsic property of the Church, like the soul, for I should like you to demonstrate the existence of the Church before, or apart from, the hierarchy, for it was by and through the High Priesthood that the vouchsafed Revelation was kept faithfully. (Gospel 5:3) If the Church ceases to have an active Magisterial authority, therefore, she ceases to truly exist. You claim you accept the authority of the Church, but you reject the current authority, by ignoring its real jurisdiction. But the current time is the only time in which we live, and therefore to reject the current authority, is to reject the authority as it truly exists, as opposed to some ideal of a perfect hierarchy that exists in our minds and in the Skies only, and not in this vale of tears. To suggest that there is a “Virosi church” and then the Church as separate from that hierarchy, is like saying if a man were to lose his rational mind, he would be the same person. But listen instead to the admonishment of the Prophet: “Therefore make no schism among you: but acknowledge one Pontiff, one Baptism; one Marriage, for where there is the Bishop, there is the Church.” (Proverbs 5:2) This does not mean you have to like the hierarchy. In fact, if they are guilty of the things which you allege, then you ought to hate them. But it does mean that regardless of that, they have an office which is due respect and reverence regardless of the men who wield it. And it does mean that you should remain obedient to their legitimate jurisdiction insofar as they do not tell you to embrace a heresy, or commit a sin.


Indeed, obedience would not be a test or a mortification, or a virtue at all, if your superiors were self-evidently kind and perfect all the time. Obeying a theoretical, incorruptible hierarchy that exists in your mind is easy enough, but obeying the reality as it is, often men weaker and more sinful than yourself (Virtue 6:7, confirms this to be God’s will, that often the lesser men have greater rank) as God has seen fit to give you and has Himself ordered for your good (Virtue 6:6, et cet.) is the work of which God truly demands of us. Just like it is easy to practise the Virtue of Charity towards someone who always gives you whatever you desire, so it is easy to reverence an hierarchy that always preaches the exact message in the exact way you want, and never sins. But it is not the easiness that the Virtue is truly born and shown, but in the difficulty: just as a man who acts kindly only to those whom he likes is guilty of sinning against Charity, so the man who refuses to respect the office of the Pontiff who is evil, is guilty of sinning against Faith. Remember this: God has ordered all the estates of the world, every single event of history, out of love for you! “But our Lord is in heaven: He hath done all things, whatsoever He willed.” (Ven. Humbert) Trust in God, for it is His work to defend the Church, not your own. We are merely the donkeys that bring our Master into the public square, and even then we sin and are wont to go astray! Do good, sin not, and wait thou for the Lord. As a final note, our exile is brief in this vale of tears. You humans shall soon ascend to the Skies on high. As for us, God will renew the earth for us. Our passing life is so much straw that withers away when compared to eternity. Therefore, do not vest your hopes in finding any Sovereign Goodness in this life, in making a "better world" or even a "better Church", for our parts in this great Play are miniscule, and in a short time you will meet the true Protagonist;  but rather do manfully, seeking first the kingdom of God and the eternal reward: whilst all earthly things needful to our salvation, He will give unto us, "For I am your Father, and the Father of all things." (Virtue 1:6) Charity means loving our enemies, or else it ceases to be charitable; patience means enduring real hardship, or else it ceases to be patient; faith means respecting the holy office of sinners, or else it ceases to be faith.


Point II.The Absurd Bonifacist View of Church Authority Makes her Non-existent.


Boniface is right to say that obedience to God is higher than obedience to religious authority, but is so vague in his application of this principle so as to make religious authority virtually non-existent. In the Apologia Pro Epistula Sua, I challenged Boniface’s vague “Thesis on Obedience” which may be considered his attempt to justify his wrong actions. Whilst I did write that letter on a false premise, for which Boniface and I are already reconciled, he does not appear to have at all answered my challenge. He argues that obedience to God supersedes obedience to religious authority: this is true. This the Church has always herself acknowledged, as one can read in the Open Letter to Confused Canonists. However, when asked to demonstrate precisely how the things demanded of Boniface violate this higher obedience, he has failed, in precise terms, to enumerate them. If, for example, the Pontiff were to tell you to steal, or fornicate, or what have you, the last thing you should do is obey him. But in those matters where he does have jurisdiction, he and the Bishops under him must be obeyed at all times insofar as these prerogatives do not contradict that obedience to God alone. 


Boniface’s principle for establishing this is entirely vague, without precedent in Scripture or in tradition, and utterly subjective. “We gain guidance from the Scrolls and they are interpreted by the reader.” (Thesis on Obedience.) This means that each man is entitled to his own interpretation, even if it be erroneous, and furthermore sets up the private individual as the sole judge in religious matters. No man, is then truly bound by obedience, because he can simply subjectively see “this disagrees with my interpretation,” and then simply ignore what the Church commands. The question becomes, then, why have a Church? All binding religious authority is vested in the private individual’s reading of Scripture, and he can simply ignore religious authority when it contradicts his interpretation.


But this view itself is not merely illogical, but unscriptural, or even anti-scriptural. It is rather in and through the High Priesthood that the word is faithfully kept, as is clear in Gospel 4:56-62 and 5:3-5, in which the Holy Priesthood is clearly invested with the authority to keep the word and teach.  Hence Church authority is actually the chief instrument in the interpretation of the Scrolls, not the private individual.


And Boniface has nowhere demonstrated how any of the acts of disobedience or schism that he has done are in any way licensed or commanded in the Scrolls. In fact, none of the theses he wrote concern any of the commands contained in Scripture, I mean, direct commands. For example, Boniface has repeatedly disobeyed Pontifical orders that he cease writing polemically against the Church, but there is clearly no warrant for this in Scripture. Where is the commandment that this be done? Boniface rightly says that obedience to God is higher, but then reduces this obedience to a vague principle of personal interpretation whilst failing to demonstrate precisely how the things required of him contravene God’s commands. For Boniface, God’s will happens to be the contrary of any command he personally doesn’t like, which basically means he never has to obey or reverence the men God has set over him. That this be absurd in itself, is self-evident.


Point III.Boniface Chooses Not to Understand Pontifical Infallibility, Despite Being Corrected. He Schisms From the Church for the Sake of a Doctrine that Doesn’t Exist!


Boniface cites Pontifical Infallibility as a reason to justify his Schism. “No mortal man is ever infallible, only GOD and the scrolls are infallible as men are prone to corruption and distortion. If a Pontiff were to spread misinformation or a misrepresentation of the scrolls, is he correct or are the scrolls? All men are capable of sins and making mistakes, it is delusional to claim otherwise.” (Section XVII) I should not have to write anything more - this is self-evidently nonsense! No man has ever claimed that Pontifical Infallibility means that the Pontiff is incapable of sin or of making mistakes. Such a doctrine would be self-evidently erroneous, even maleficent. If this fake doctrine which no man actually believes is the reason Boniface is committing the grave sins of Schism and disobedience, then I really must correct him. The only man under a delusion is Boniface, because he is chasing after the wind; refuting a non-existent doctrine.


Any man who wants to understand this true doctrine as it actually exists is encouraged to read the actual writings of those who advocate it, and not this strawman which Boniface has erected. The gentle reader is entreated to read the author’s Tract entitled “The Church is the Sword of Owyn.” (Boniface says that the Holy Pontiff never acknowledged his thesis, but Father Seraphim and I did, with the Pontiff’s approval, and we responded to it in this Tract. It is attached below.)




Point IV.Disobedience and Schism are Grave Sins.


Disobedience and Schism are grave sins. Not only against Faith as has already been demonstrated, but also against Fidelity. More on this topic can be read in the Open Letter to Confused Canonists and Second Epistle.  I, in this first Open Epistle, predicted that there would be Schism, and that the Church and Boniface ought to pray together, have charity and reconcile. This was waved away and not taken seriously. Now it has come true. I do not say this to appear wise, only to show that everything written in that Epistle is entirely true. 





The gentle reader ought to know that in matters where the Pontiff has jurisdiction, to disobey the Pontiff is to disobey God, for it was God that ordered that he be your superior (Virtue 6:6, etc.) and the High Pontiff is clearly the successor, insofar as he is a teacher of faith and morals, to the Prophets. (Fundamentum Ecclesiae, V.) Hence to disobey James II in matters where he has the right to demand obedience, is to disobey Owyn, and to disobey Owyn, is to disobey God. 


Point V.Abuses of Power do not Justify Disobedience and Schism.


Sons of mankind. Remember your ancestors. Remember your posterity. Who ever heard of what Boniface speaks? I do not respond to the accusations of corruption, etc. and readily grant them, because regardless of whether they are true, they do not justify his course of action. The Prophets themselves were fallible men who sometimes fell into evil ways; I do not need to quote Scripture, I already have proven that. Did those that were under that authority Schism? Even the Harrenites did not fall to that manner of wickedness! Of course, if evil kin-slaying be not enough to justify Schism, I fail to see any course of action that could possibly justify Schism. Moreover, it is a Schism against the Prophetic authority. For the authority of the Church and the authority of the Prophets are one: not in the sense that the Church can weave a new Revelation, for this is vouchsafed unto us only by God, and this was complete with Sigismund. But in the binding and teaching of that authority, they are one. For their laurel are one, their Priesthood is of the same institution, and this has always, as can be seen from Fundamentum Ecclesiae, this is a founding principle of the Church, that as she has the Prophets for her foundation, she is the authoritative interpreter of their Revelation. Hence if any man saith that he loveth God but despiseth the seat of the Pontiff and the Bishops, that man is at least very much mistaken, and at worst, that man is a liar. 


Boniface must needs repent of this before it is too late, and rescue himself from eternal death. If a man smelt like dung, he would rather have another be honest and tell him, rather than have everyone too cowardly to tell him the truth, and then go unknowingly smelling like dung. I know that I am a sinner; but I strive not to be so, and I repent of my sin. If I fell into some sin and refused to repent of it, the first thing I should like Boniface to do, is write me or speak to me, and tell me to repent. Boniface ought to know that sin is the way of death. Whilst Boniface Schisms further and further away, he increasingly has the smell of eternal death about him, from the which peril I would warn him.


 Point VI.Boniface Accuses the Church of Being Liberal and Secular. This is False, and Better Applies to Himself.


To accuse the Church of secularism is somewhat foolish. The Pontiff himself recently published a very strongly-worded polemic against the mood of today, entitled The Age of Reason. This is the opposite of secularism. Boniface has always recommended the separation of the clerical life from politics. As has been demonstrated, this is totally at odds with the teaching of Holy Church and the Holy Doctors. And indeed, encourages the separation of Church and state, a central precept of secularism.



Boniface is the one who complains of “censorship”, as if Schism and error ought to be given an equal platform to truth! It seems to me he would be far more welcome in a so-called “free-thinkers” society than would the present Pontiff. Moreover, he considers that when the Church anathematises wrong opinion, that she is somehow overstepping her power and prerogative. He thinks that when the Church admonishes error she is tyrannical, but when she does not always admonish sin, she is weak. But as I said, this is the wrong way around. It would be a dereliction of duty for Holy Church not to censure the works of Schism and heresy, but often (Not always), it is the appropriate course of action to be tolerant and merciful against sin.


Point VII.Boniface does not Understand the Difference Between Doctrine and Discipline.


Boniface cites the relaxation of clerical celibacy and poverty as reasons for Schism. This is absurd. The Church has the authority to change these things as she pleases. Of course, those who already have Vows ought to respect the Vows which they have made. But it has never been a Doctrine of the Church that Priests ought to be celibate, only a discipline. If James II were teaching a false doctrine, this would indeed be worth writing, but since he is merely changing an adjustable discipline, he is free to change it with no input from the laity. A doctrine is a dogma which is true forever (Bl. Daniel VI, Pontifical Decree of 1720), whereas a discipline is a law that is done for administrative or some other reason which may change according to circumstance. The way to change a disciplinary law like this is to reason, to propagate the contrary view, and of course, to celebrate, live and promote a celibate life yourself. Schisming from the Church by removing yourself from her legitimate jurisdiction and demanding she yield to your demand for celibacy is a sinful and completely unsupported action with no justification or moral grounds whatsoever.


Point VIII.Clerical Celibacy has Never Been a Doctrine of the Church, but a Discipline for Practical Reasons. (But Clerical Marriage, Actually is a Doctrine.)


That Celibacy has always been considered a discipline, is easily proven by recourse to historical Church documents. Firstly, the Scrolls make no mention of celibacy, nor do we have any documentation of it for a long time. But these three quotations should settle matters: 


“Priests may marry, but can never ascend to the office of Bishop or High Pontiff, lest the positions become hereditary and given to unworthy men.” (Thomas I, GOLDEN BULL OF AANENBURG, I.)


“xiv. The Church reaffirms the Imperial doctrine of clerical marriage, hereby endorsing clerical nuptials as the will of God.” (Radomir I, Golden Bull of Cavan, I.)


“ Priests are celibate; they cannot marry or engage in sexual activity. This is an administrative law, rather than one deriving from the Holy Scrolls. It is intended to prevent the establishment of family dynasties within the church, or the inheritance of church property by sons of priests, as has been attempted in the past.” (Ven. Fabian (Imprimatur, Saint Sixtus IV and Blessed Daniel VI), Catechism of the Canonist Church.) 


Notice how clerical marriage is something that has been practised for centuries. Notice also, how it is called a “doctrine.” To say that Priests should not marry to prevent hereditary aristocracies forming in the Church, is a correct statement and one clearly supported her. To say that clerical marriage is any kind of justification for Schism is a false doctrine, for that it is morally permissible for Priests to marry, is an eternal doctrine of the Church. Hence no man has the right to incur Schism over such a matter, for it is entirely the Pontiff’s right to adjust this discipline as he requires. For to say clerics ought not marry is a malleable discipline; to say they cannot morally marry, is a doctrine. The Church clearly has endorsed variously, celibacy and marriage for pragmatic and not for doctrinal reasons. Therefore, it in no way undermines the legitimate authority of the Pontiff or justifies disobedience that he changes something which he has both the right and duty to change according to circumstance.


What an absolute nonsensical statement he puts at the end of this passage. “If monks and nuns have more piety than the greedy squabbling and pervasive cardinals, then why are these faithful people not replacing them?” (Section XIII) He thinks the Church is a meritocracy, now? For one, the idea that women should hold such positions is an absurdity, when they cannot even be ordained. Secondly, Owyn gravely sinned, and God would have given the Prophetic Office to Harren, had he not refused. They had authority regardless of whether men considered them pious. If you believe you are ordained or have spiritual authority because you were more “pious” than anyone else, you undoubtedly were not pious! The truth is that God calls us to different things, for we have different gifts. I have no doubt that the greater part of the layman of the Schism War era were holier than I am. But would they make for suitable Priests? That is another matter. We are all called to different things. It is not what we do that makes us pious as much as the piety with which we do them. The pious housewife who works the loom with piety is of greater virtue, and will have a greater glory in the Skies, than the Pontiff who does great things out of a sense of achievement. For, as Saint Jude said “One act of love surpasseth a thousand outward acts of charity.” (On Charity.) The Monastic is not called to run the Church, he is called to do the things which a monk does. That he does it with piety will afford him a greater reward in heaven, for the just “shall be rewarded according to their Virtue, and not to their station.” (Virtue 6:7)


“Since the beginning of our church all clergymen have been required to take a vow of celibacy as part of their oath of ordination, the reason for this is quite clear.” (Section XXXVIII) This has also been demonstrated to be false by the above Point.


Point IX.To Equate Not Imposing a Vow of Poverty with Greed and Pride on the Pontiff’s Part, is itself Absurd and Prideful.


Boniface accuses His Holiness of pride and greed over the lack of Vows of Poverty for diocesan clergy. (Section XXXIX) Again, the above section applies. This is a disciplinary and not a doctrinal matter, and is not a justification for Schism. However, this is refuted by recourse to none other than the founder of Canonist Monasticism, St. Jude, the Angelic Doctor and co-Patron of my Order. 


In his Thesis on The Monastic Life, the Vow of Poverty is clearly referred to as a thing specific to the Monastic Life, and not expected of Priests outside of a monastic order. Hence, Jude acts in exact accord with the High Pontiff in acknowledging that the Vow of Poverty ought not be applied to the whole clergy. Furthermore, Daniel the Reader was reigning High Pontiff at that time, that Saintly Pontiff. So unless Boniface wants to accuse two Saints and Holy Doctors of sin or error in this matter and Schism also from them, he ought to withdraw this argument.


Point X.Faith Doesn’t Care About Your Feelings. The Church is not a Democracy.


The Church is not a democracy. This is self-evident. Writing polemical letters to the general public in an effort to stir up public sentiment is nothing. What matters is that the Pontiff is the authoritative teacher of the Canon and you ought to obey him. Nor ought we to give any credance to feelings, for these mislead us. Tears do not speak of holiness. Rather, a clean conscience and a faith in God and Holy Church are sufficient, to steer clear of sin and to do good.


Point XI.Boniface Thinks that the Way to Reform the Church is From the Outside, Which Means he is a Moral Consequentalist and a Public, Unrepentant Sinner. We Can Never Sin, Even if it Would Bring with it Good Consequences, for God Knows Best.


Boniface thinks that he is still in the fold of Holy Mother Church, and proclaims to love her. He does not advocate for the end of the Church as an institution (41 Theses, Conclusion.) ,but rather seeks to reform her, by tactics of impious irreverence toward holy things, ignoring Church authority, and declaring excommunications invalid with no grounds, whilst relying on a vague and self-justifying principle of authority which bears no relation to reality.


This is a consequentialist philosophy. We can never sin. It is better to die than to sin! No intrinsic wrong can be justified by the good consequences it would bring. The ends never justify the means. This is clearly borne out in the Scroll of Virtue, when some actions and behaviours are prohibited by the inherent wrong of the act. Hence some actions are inherently wrong, and we call these sins. And sin can never be done, even if we think good consequences may come as a result. To think this way, is actually to tempt and blaspheme God, for it suggests that He, in His infinite mercy and power, cannot bring about these things by His own will, but needs us to sin to bring them about. But God has already dashed aside sin. 


That disobedience and irreverence are sins is already demonstrated. If Boniface thinks these can be justified in any way by his admirable reforms, he is guilty of a grievous blasphemy, for as Fr. Seraphim (God rest his soul) wrote, to justify sin is the worst blasphemy. (The Lukewarm Man, II.


Point XII.Boniface’s Rejection of Gentile Priests, is Illogical and Squarely Contradicted by Church Doctrine. 


Boniface has already been refuted by the Prelate of the Priesthood in his belief that non-humans cannot ascend to the Seven Skies. Boniface said that those not of mankind cannot become Priests because they cannot ascend to the Seven Skies. I replied: "Even assuming what you have said is true, how is access to the Skies when we die a condition of membership of the Priesthood? Blessed Daniel VI and Venerable Fabian were clear: any adult male descendant who is baptised can be validly ordained. Holy Church has spoken and there is nothing contrary to Faith and Morals in it."


Of course, he has still failed to demonstrate the logical connection between not being Priests and not ascending to the Skies. Indeed, historically, there have been non-human High Priests and Pontiffs. Bernard I, the twelfth High Priest of the Faith, was an Halfling. He was the predecessor of St. Everard I, who apparently considered his election perfectly normal. Pius I was an High Elf. Again, his election was considered perfectly valid, and although he was a troublesome Pontiff, his successor Blessed Adeodatus, a very holy man, had no trouble accepting his legitimacy, and St. Lucien after him. So, although rare, it is clearly not opposed to Church teaching in any way for a non-human even to ascend to the seat of a Bishop. James II merely accepted the judgement of St. Everard, Blessed Adeodatus and St. Lucien. If accepting the teachings of the Saints is a valid reason to schism and show gross irreverence, then I should suppose whether the Church only exists in our minds, and has no real binding authority. All this information can be found in the Book of the Pontificate. 


APPENDIX: Course of Action, Prayer for Unity; Deus Caritas Est.


Friends, Deus Caritas Est. (Proverbs 5:1) That is, God is love. If we wish to be like God, we ought to love as God loves us. This means loving our neighbour, that is, those who God places within our care. Loving our neighbour means admonishing him when he goes on the wrong path, for if we desire his good and not merely to be popular, we will seek the good of his immortal soul. I hope you will appreciate that this is my sincere goal in all of this. 


Please pray. Pray for me, a sinner. Pray also for reconciliation between the Church and Boniface. Please pray Boniface repents of his irreverence and ceases his schismatic acts. Pray for the Pontiff and the Bishops, that they be able to govern more justly. Pray for the conversion of sinners, and for the liberty and exultation of our holy Mother, the Church. That is my proposal to you. For just as bad company corrupts a man to become bad, so does good company enlighten a man to do good. Therefore, spend ye time with God, abiding in Love, and in communion with the angels and Saints, and you will become a beacon of love and truth and goodness in the world. And if every man was so, there would be no need for an Apologia. 


As for Boniface, my proposal to him is that he return to the fold of Holy Mother Church, and then try to implement these reforms. To do otherwise is to sin, and to sin for that it might bring good, is a prideful blasphemy. There is only one way out, then, and this is what I have proposed. I do not write with a light pen. It was one of Boniface’s Epistles that led me on the path to becoming a Canonist. I am not an emotional man, but I do not enjoy at all engaging with Boniface, for I perceive that no man falls for so long unless he be raised first to a great height. It reminds me that I myself am so frail and must needs rely on God with all my strength. When I see criminals going to the scaffold, I say “There but for the grace of God goes Pius.” O my God, how I have needed Thy strength to write this Apology! Please give me the grace to persevere! How long will I live in this exile? I long for the eternal, I love for Thee alone, O my Supreme Good, O my Absolute Truth, O my Unutterable Beauty. O Love, do Thou reign in our hearts!

I may not enjoy rebuking Boniface, a man I admire. But we are not here to enjoy. We are here for Love. If I have any love for Boniface, I must desire his good; therefore I must publish this. Please, Boniface, return home. Do not endanger your soul by sinful schism. I am tired of all this political posturing. This is not about posturing. Posturing won’t save your soul, but do manfully, and sin not, and love, and you will have eternal life. And I will write not a word more on this matter than this, unless holy obedience prompt me to do so. Now I can focus on writing about prayer and the Scrolls as I have always desired. I consecrate our affair to God. It is in His hands, this weary and unprofitable, but necessary work, and now I return to my true purpose, the life of prayer.  I am thankful and gladful for it. God, I surrender myself to Thee, take care of everything! This is the truest and most meritorious prayer. Laudate Dominum! 

Edited by thesmellypocket

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

HIS HOLINESS JAMES II, High Pontiff of the Church of the Canon, Archbishop of Visigia, Successor of the High Priesthood of the Church, Supreme Pontiff of the Church of True Faith, Keeper of the Canon, Missionary to Aeldin, High Servant to the Exalted's Testaments, Humble Servant of the Faithful and Vicar of GOD places his seal of imprimatur upon the document.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

“GOD bless this man.” Monsignor Albarosa would state. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Damage control st its finest, the fact that James is too lazy and unable to respond and has others do it for him tells it all, nevertheless I shall pen a response." Said Boniface.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boniface said:

"Damage control st its finest, the fact that James is too lazy and unable to respond and has others do it for him tells it all, nevertheless I shall pen a response." Said Boniface.

""Damage control?" You still don't believe me, do you? I did not write this for the Pontiffs sake, but for yours. Remember that as Ven. Humbert said, the road to the Void is paved with the skulls of Priests. I write this to save you from error and sin - that is it! But of course, you must imagine me as some kind of polemicist writing under the Pontiffs yoke. Let it here be professed ex animo, and with a total internal and external assent and consent, that I love you, and wrote this Apology for your good, and out of loving free will. These polemical matters are too high above me. I am a doctor of the soul. You've become so skewed by wont of reform that you've forgotten the good of the immortal soul," replies Pius.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2020 at 8:09 PM, thesmellypocket said:

“One act of love surpasseth a thousand outward acts of charity.”


“For it is through compassion and fortitude which results in the birth of ecclesiastical unity, will the tides shift once more and the sanctity of the soul find eternal nourishment in God.” St. Jude would say looking out of the small cobble monastery in which he inhabited within the Skies.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...