O, IDIOCY!

[littyfam 790]

 

---

 

 

O ,   I D I O C Y !

 

O R ,   A   R E F U T A T I O N   A N D

C O N S I D E R A T I O N   O F   C R I T I C I S M

O F   T H E   H I G H   C U R I A

 

 

---

 

I

F O R E W O R D   &   A D D R E S S

 

I shall keep this as brief as I may, that my writings hereafter are extensive (and ridden with a numerous errors of academic literacy; they are a slog, and I shall not condemn the reader for skimming them wholesale).

What follows hereunder is a critique of each point of critique as set forth by the writers Esfir d’Arkent, and Calliope Colborn in their Transgressions of the Curia. Do not mistake this as some personal attack upon the pair, nor as any-such hostility toward the signatory states of the document. It is a mere explanation of the historical, historiographical, and theological failings of the various (and I emphasise this word, for they are many in substance and quantity) points of criticism set upon the Holy Mother Church within the missive. Where I see value in these critiques, I name it (though perhaps in a more ireful and condemnatory manner than the objective reader may prefer; forgive me this expression of emotion), and where I see abject manipulation or else idiocy, I name it also.

Let it be acknowledged that I am no bipartisan, yet nor am I wholly partisan in this affair. Where my husband is Antonius of Númendil, my father is the late H.P. Deunoro I; I am not lacking in either personal involvement nor in theological aptitude, and I caution the reader to acknowledge both of these elements as pertinent to my analyses. 

With such warnings and prefaces outlined, I bid you: let the arguments stand as they may, and read them for what they are: critiques of critiques, and no abject defense of the Mother Church (for I myself take issue with some of their recent practice, and this I have named to members of the Curiate and general Priesthood both).

May the Lord God on High guide my hand.

 

---

 

II

R E B U T T A L

 

I

F A I T H

As regards schism,

The Mother Church has never held as its mandate the continual and uninterrupted unity of the faithful. What its mandate is (and this is a matter repeatedly ignored or else misunderstood by the writer-pair of this missive), is to “instruct [...] in the path of holiness” (Gospel 5:4); this is the maintenance of virtue (and not necessarily piety - these are distinct things) among the members of the faithful so-including the Canonist Princes invested with an equivalent mandate to see to the worldly needs of the Tribes. That the Mother Church and its High Priest are infallible is an idea well-refuted by the Fr. Bainbridge in his Response to a Brother in Faith, and so I shall not argue to that point (indeed, the Mother Church has long seen misappropriation of its mandate). What I argue, here, is that irregardless of purported tyranny, corruption, or aggression, the response of the Horenic Covenant is explicit schism incited of its own actions. That the Mother Church may rebuke (or thereafter excommunicate, and thereafter anathematise) lords-temporal in the pursuit of virtue is established theologically, traditionally, and legislatively. I will recall here the excommunications of Philip III, of Veletz, of Philip I, of Heinrik Sarkozic. I do not argue for the efficacy of these as regards the Church’s mandate, but merely that multiple precedents provide for the excommunication (and calls to arms if the excommunicant does not enter penitent negotiations with the Church, or where they fail) of lords-temporal as a legitimate practice. This is no method of aggression, but a method well-established and well-engaged with by the Petrans, by the Hanseti, by Balian heretofore. What the Curia has done is no inciting of schism, but a simple fulfillment of its mandate as so decreed by the Lord God.

 

As regards pagan associations,

I do not rebut the basic premise of this point. That the Mother Church employs Horenic heathens as allies is a regrettable thing. I rebuke, here, the explicitly-named argument that the Church attempts “to destroy [C]anondom”. The Mother Church cannot be divided from the faith. To do so would be to refute the decree of the Lord God as expressed by Owyn in his anointing of Clement, Evaristus, and the Priesthood of Owyn (Gospel 5:3-5); the Church derives its authority from the Laurel of Horen, which is the element of Prophecy, and so is the element of instruction in virtue. This is to say that Godfrey made to destroy the True Faith by his prophetic conquests, or that Owyn made to destroy virtue by his culling of the unfaithful. The Church cannot destroy Canondom; it is Canondom, insofar as the Prophet was a vessel for virtue.

 

As regards imperial ambition,

Herein exists a fundamental misunderstanding (and I shall not resort to suppositions of intentional misappropriation of fact, for that would be a grave indignity) of the matter of the Kingdom of Aaun. Let an objective sequence of events be outlined (named objective for I will be offering simple summaries of appended documents and missives as existed contemporaneously to the matter):

 

   Charles II and Hedwig of Aaun are called to ecclesiastical trial for purported conspiration in the death of their kinsman James Marcel Whitespire.

   That same month, Tiberias van Aert alleges the discovery of the body of James Marcel Whitespire within a chapel of the Hand of Horen, and reaffirms his intent to battle the Kingdom of Aaun under justification of kinslaying.

   That same month, Tiberias van Aert alleges an attempt on his life by the Kingdom of Aaun, and reaffirms his intent to battle the Kingdom of Aaun (despite the legislative processes employed by the Mother Church).

   Charles II calls his allies, and refutes the claim of James Marcel Whitespire’s murder.

   That same month, Hedwig of Aaun publicly confesses her culpability in James Marcel Whitespire’s murder, and maintains her husband’s innocence.

   The following month, Charles II abdicates and the Church is placed as Regent of Aaun.

   The Treaty of Minas Aranath is signed.

   Godwin II is alleged to have attempted violation of the Treaty of Minas Aranath, and the Church demands guardianship over him until his majority.

   Godwin II signs the Charter of Lemon Hill (herein I suppose his reunion with the Church).

   Aaunic councillors are alleged to have attended a conference seeking schism, and the Aengul Raguel’s warning of Whitespire’s destruction is named.

In this interim, Godwin II presumably departs from the continent for an extended period.

   Godwin II returns after his absence, and names his expectation of coronation.

   Godwin II announces his abdication in favour of Mark Anthony Alstion.

Extensive discussions regarding Aaunic leadership, witnessed by myself, among countless others, occurs in this period. These go generally unrecorded.

   The Pontifical States are established, encompassing the lands of Aaun.

The extant polity of Alba is later granted to the Alstions.

 

I ask, then, where is the imperialism in this? The Mother Church had offered trial and hence penance for Charles II; he had chosen abdication. The Mother Church had offered guardianship of Godwin II and his later coronation; he had chosen to depart the continent. The Mother Church had offered a return of the Alstions to the throne; they bickered and squabbled until no suited candidate remained. What else, then, but to take charge of so sinful a place? This was no coup - it was a circumstance of misfortune for the House Alstion, now restored as Dukes of Alba. I shall not recount this all for Balian, not least that they were granted the resumption of their monarchial authorities as the Alstions might have been, had they been so penitent as the present John II. This pattern you claim is not of Churchly imperialism, but of a pattern of impious and schismatic kings brought to answer for their crimes by trial and force - as is the Mother Church’s mandate.

 

As regards my lord-husband Antonius of Numendil,

I take a personal note of offence here, and shall deal with this matter as one deals with an insult upon their house and household: with the greatest ire, and the greatest condemnation. My husband is a wrathful man by nature, I know this well, yet he does well to temper and quell it always - what else can man do but resist his sinful temptations? Your greatest claim to his bias is that he shouted, that he passioned - shall man not be passionate when he sees sin, when he supposes some attempt at attack upon the Vicar’s Seat? What, then, of these half-formed notions of breaches in Canon Law, that the secular lord cannot engage in the High Curia? I shall engage with this on two bases: first, as regards tradition and Canon Law objectively, and second, as regards the particularities of my husband as he has existed. On that first basis: there is no prescription forbidding temporal interaction with the Mother Church’s High Curia - indeed, the office of Monsignor once functioned explicitly for this statal-churchly dialogue (though is now defunct for many reasons); look, also, to recent tradition, where a priest (Fr. John Alstion) was given to become king (John I of Aaun), where a once-duke (Brandt of Minitz) was given to become a High Pontiff (Caius I). To dissolve the intimacy between church and state is to ignore both their functions of instruction and governorate, both of which must necessarily concern themselves with virtue. On that second basis: since his latter youth, my husband has involved himself dearly with the Mother Church (and most-so with H.P. Harrentzedek). In earlier affairs (which went uncondemned by either Balianite or Hanseti), he had acted as Seneschal of the Holy League (beginning in 1995), and now sits as an ordained priest. This is the Gospellian model of the lord-temporal; as Horen, and Owyn, and Godfrey were prophet-kings (bearing the Laurel of prophet as the priest does now, and the authority of the lord-temporal), so is my husband. To suppose dearly involvement of the lord-temporal in the Mother Church as erroneous is to suppose them as inherently divided - it is not so, has not been so, must not be so. I defer here to Fr. Witmar’s Throne and Altar.

 

I shall be a ways more brief in the analyses to follow, that a-many of the particularities of argument relevant henceforth have been outlined hitherto.

 

II

H A N S E T I - R U S K A

As regards the posthumous excommunication of Karl IV,

I shall not comment on the matter, that I was on hermitage at the time of the affair, and so know pity-little on the intricacies of either Churchly nor Hanseti views.

 

As regards Joren I,

From whence the authors derived this alleged “core [C]anonist tenet of ‘Not punishing the son for the sins of the father’”, I do not know. Ancestral (both matrimonial and patrimonial) sin is well-attested to: the imperfections of the Brothers are revealed for the sin of the First Woman (Gospel 1:43-46); the Krugite Tribe is marked with tusks for the wrath of Krug (Gospel 3:19), and, if one acknowledges the validity of the Books of Godfrey and Sealing, the matter is made explicit, “But the evil of Iblees hides in men’s hearts, for all bear the mark of their forebears’ sins” (Gospel 6:3), “But none escape the sins of their fathers” (Gospel 6:41), “‘As Horen and Owyn, as all men, you suffer the sins of your father and your mother’” (Gospel 7:28). The Tribe in their entirety (the Brothers, Krug) and the descendants (Godfrey, Sealing) are made culpable for the sin of their kinsman. So was Godwin bidden repent for his parents’ sin (or, more rather, charged to be led away from a path-alike), and so was John bidden repent for his parents’ sin (and so granted reassumption of his kingdom in light of his fulfilled penance) - why, then, shall the matter of Karl and Joren be governed differently? It would be a graven error, in contravention of Gospellian tradition.

 

As regards diplomatic aggression,

I will not dignify this feeble villainisation (for this is a practice that all parties in conflict adopt) of the Mother Church with a response; its flaccidity is evident to any with half a mind.

 

As regards assassination plots,

Indeed, if such a plot does exist (of which this is my first hearing of it), then I would charge those aware to gather some decent source and submit it unto the High Court, as due process bids. I await this eagerly, for to have sinners charged with their sin is a joyous thing, as was done with the Alstions of Enswerp and the House Keen hitherto.

 

III

B A L I A N

As regards threats,

While I am hesitant to retread old ground at length (one shall recall the extensive discussion made of this affair at the trials of the Balianites), I shall address it in passing. What the queen had shorn, was a sheep of the sacred flock. This is to desecrate an altar, or destroy a sacramental relic; while undue wrath of His Holiness might be acknowledged, the premise of outrage at desecration is one any half-decent Canonist should agree with.

 

As regards the Balianite Regency,

If men shall balk at the High Curia maintaining continued oversight of a state so fallen into sin as to scheme schism, then we are in truly Godwinite times. 

 

As regards Fr. Ledicort, and Robert de Rouen,

If the Balianite court holds fairly evidence of such trespasses, then I urge them, as I have the Hanseti, to compile it, and submit it to the High Court, as due process designates, more so than this endless listing of minor individual grievance as representative of His Holiness’ Curia.

 

As regards Ivan of Lotharia,

I should pray that these are not words spoken by the once-Eminent Ivan, for they read of a gross misunderstanding of the place of the College. Where the College, where the Curia, where the Episcopy operates, they operate at will and designate of His Holiness. Do not mistake this; do not presume that these men operate at will of their diocese - they operate by pleasure of the Lord God through His High Vicar.

 

IV

P E T R A

As regards Ivoria,

The legislate-ancestors of the Petrines and Balianites shall weep at how drearily far their sons and daughters have fallen. Let us read the article as written: “Should the City-State of Hohkmat move from the region of Nortrebanc, the region is to be immediately ceded to the Heartlander Confederation to reunite the Petran Meadowlands.” To be established first, is that the city-state did not relocate - indeed, it willingly submitted to the Pontifical States as a fief (and so did not move from the region, as named) and came, by intervention of the Aengul Raguel, to be razed. I might also mention that the entity of the Heartlander Confederation was no longer extant, yet that occupies a more tenuous legal discussion far beyond my feeble mind. This was the submission of a sovereign state to another to become as a fief, and then the fall of that state (and not their relocation; the institution simply ceased to exist), and its later occupation by the Ivorian.

 

As regards the Order of St. Jude,

I had myself been a delegate to Ivoria upon the raising of the issue, and I am told delegates-direct to the Judites were disseminated in a manner alike. Where concessions were made (as duly acknowledged by the writers), if these remain still to ill-effect, then I charge you as I have charged the Hanseti, and the Balianite: raise the matter with the Mother Church, and decry it not merely when it is convenient to for matters of warfare.

 

On mediation,

Once more do I remind the writers that the Mother Church’s mandate is not absolute peace, but the instruction of virtue. The High Curia is no “Peacemaking body”, it is an aide to the Lord God’s Vicar in the instruction of virtue. That it often occupies a function of mediation is simply that - a temporary occupation. As regards the particularities of Celia’nor, I refer only to The Apostolic City Accord, and its complete addressment of the issue.

 

V

 H Y S P I A

As regards Krugistan,

I shall not speak to this specific instance, referring once more to my hermitage, yet I shall acknowledge some petty contradiction (if only for my personal entertainment, that the theological minutiae of argument hitherto has tired my mind): so have the writers demanded mediation of the Mother Church, and yet rebuke its method of mediation as employed in the matter of Krugistan. If the High Curia’s mediation does not please the lords-temporal, then I know not why you demand that they mediate in other matters - it makes drearily little sense in this aged mind of mine.

 

---

 

 ¹ While Bainbridge’s thesis as regards the absolute divisibility of Church and State is one yet-debatable (and disagreeable to I), his refutation of pontifical and churchly infallibility (or conversely that they are both corruptable), and that there remains a necessity for checks on corruption within the Church  is well-argued and remains applicable to the point at hand.

 ² See Owyn’s rebukes in Spirit, and his subsequent investment of instructional authority in Clement and Evaristus and his greater Priesthood of Owyn.

 ³ While I am loathe to mention the Codex Iurius Canonici Danielus Pontifex, given its dissolution beneath S.H.P Caius I, it remains the major guiding document of Canon Law, and so I refer here Title IV, Chapters 3-6.

 ⁴ Do note here that I speak particularly of Horenic heathens, for the Malinite, Krugite, or Urguanite is not explicitly rebuked for their heathenry in Spirit or Gospel, but for their sinful practices. It is only the Horenite who is obliged to pay absolute credence to the Holy Word (and if one is disposed to belief in Auspice, the aid of Krug, Malin, and Urguan in the final battle, who each were not blessed with knowledge of the Word, implies the general permittance of the non-Horenic heathen in Canonist warfare if it is for the purposes of the promotion of virtue).

 ⁵ I name them half-formed for there is no particular title, or chapter, or article given as underpinning claim.

 ⁶ Note also the equivalency in patrimonial predestiny; think to Harren Horenson as heir to the prophecy of Horen.

 ⁷ I shall remind the Petrine that they had acknowledged the sovereignty of the City-State of Hokhmat in the same document they cite (that is, an absolute authority over itself). That the city-state had chosen to submit to Pontifical oversight, was a sovereign action.

 

---

 

III

P O S T S C R I P T

 

Here stand my critiques, and I bid these lady-writers: critique my criticisms, that that is the very purpose of debate. Name my idiocies as I have named yours, for I am a drearily fallible woman, and wont to an erroneous and wanton sort of writing.

One may note the consolidation of points heretofore - that is purposeful, for some are indivisible (and so strangely divided in the original text) from their preceding or following. Where granularity is lost, a greater clarity of thesis is gained - I pray that the reader appreciates this.

One may note, also, the lacking mention of Celia’nor - this is similarly purposeful. What transgressions the authors may name as regards the heathen state are irrelevant to matters of Canondom, save where they intersect with Canonist affairs (namely on the matter of the Petrine treaties, addressed hitherto). The lord-temporal may dither and fret on heathen states, yet never has the Mother Church been given to address of the heathen save that glorious act of proselytisation.
With such clarities outlined, I say once more: let my rebukes stand as they are, and let them remain unmanipulated by friend or foe to support or diminish any present notions of conflict among Church and State. That is not the purpose of this exercise - it is only an address of what seemed to I a grievous misappropriation of fact evident in the reviewed document.

May the Lord God on High hold us dear to Him.

 

Ilia Aeneth of Albarosa

 

---

 

[ratlordmagic 1484]

“So, in summary, the church can do whatever it wants because it says so and we have to live with it, since the only apparent recourse is to expect the church to take action against itself, which nobody in their right mind would think likely to happen.” Summarized Miroslaw Jazlowiecki.

[Trenchist 864]

"Succinctly and beautifully put,

When reading The Idiocies outlined by the Covenant's creme-de-la-creme, my feeble words failed me, for each warranted not more than a sentence in logic to refute.

You have proven even that can be made enjoyable to read.

 

All Thanks be to G-d,

-Father Elim"

[DancingZebra267 1626]

Holy Ser Vincenzo nodded along the missive as he read. "Well spoken."

[Malins Welcome 1519]

"Hopefully" A Cardinal remarks "This will be enough to pierce through the lies of the Deceiver. For some at least."

[Destructokeith 1142]

"Ein gutte man, wise und fair"

Artair says of the bishop as he reads the missive from his office, placing it within the top drawer once finished

[sergisala 3451]

Fr. Marc Galbraith nodded upon reading the missive issued by Ilia Aeneth "I agree, well said."

[Frawlic 1602]

"Frederik, that is a parenthesis, that is also a parenthesis, that one too." Dima pointed to the writ as she bounced a babe on her lap.