thesmellypocket

ADDED AT THE REQUEST OF HIS HOLINESS, JAMES II:

 

APPENDIX: THE FEAST OF ALL THE JUST.  (12th of First Seed.) After being welcomed into paradise by their spiritual Mother, Saint Julia, the Just of all descendant races are commemorated here, that is, those who dwell in the lower Skies below the Saints and Blessed, and who await the destruction of Iblees. On this feast is commemorated especially the brotherly love which ought to exist between the Descendants. Liturgical Readings: Virtue 6:1;  Spirit 6:9-12.

“What the writer of this Epistle fails to do is to separate the inclination from the action. A married man will still have sexual desires for other women – it becomes sinful only with intent or indulgence. A man or woman with these disordered desires for the same sex is not evil or wrong, just as a man with an urge to fornicate is not evil or wrong. What is wrong, is to fornicate, or to put oneself in an occasion to do so, or to intently indulge such desires in the mind. I am expected to be celibate, but the Church does not demand that I blind myself so that I do not see attractive women. An orc may only be inclined to Elvish women. That is not sinful. To be tempted or have an inclination does not separate you from God or make you a sinner destined for the void, for iblees only tempts the pure. The rest are already his.”

 

“Certainly the unchanging Dogma of Holy Church is that same sex acts are inherently sinful. Ven. Humbert, who is the Church’s moral Doctor, even listed them as among the gravest sins,” Pius writes in a public column.

 

“And blessed is she who undergoes temptation, for she will receive a never-fading crown of glory. Please pray, friends, for as an Elf, I may have a long road ahead to collect mine.”

 

“The Church is the sole interpreter of the Scrolls, for she has received them. Holy union means the marriage between a man and a woman. It is not to be thought of otherwise. Marriage between the same sexes is a diabolical evil.”

THE SCROLL OF VIRTUE.

CRITICAL EDITION of the FLEXIO TEXT

By the Venerable Father Humbert, O.S.J.

 

With the “Canonist Commentary on Sacred Scripture” by Pius of Sutica, F.S.S.C.T.

A.D. 1787.

 

Venerable Humbert of St. Jude.

 

((OOC note: It is recommended to read this on the computer and NOT on the phone. It is very footnote heavy, and the footnotes don’t appear on the phone, so you would miss the greater part of the document! Also, if any of you happen to be Latinists and see errors, please correct. 

 

THE SCROLL OF VIRTUE.

Pius replies in a letter: “Father Boniface. Thank you for your letter. Except that I published a homily on baptism (Whilst I was an Elven Priest for that matter, and you gave me no objection for this, yet if you thought I was giving invalid Sacraments you could have told me, that is something I should like to know) I made clear that the same baptism which Exalted Horen received from the Angel, we receive in our baptism. And as far as I understand, you enjoyed this homily very much. Now as Horen was adopted into the Prophetic office through Baptism, so do we men become adopted in like manner into the Church, through this same sacrament. And the Church is the inheritor and sole dispenser and interpreter of the Prophetic Office. Are not, therefore, other descendants who are baptised received into the Church? And so, if they be received, are they not sharers in this Prophetic office? And if they be sharers in that same office, can they not be called of the same adoption? And if they be of the same adoption, are they not sons of Horen by merit of adoption, and not of blood?”

 

“And furthermore, I refuted your thesis on infallibility and wrote a Tract proving it, and you have not responded to this. This Tract is called: Tract II, the Church is the Sword of Owyn. I advise you to read it. We are required not only to believe the Scrolls but also those truths which the Church has been vouchsafed to by God, and which she presents to us as divinely revealed. This truths are called Dogmas. Catechisms do not fall under Pontifical Infallibility though, you are correct. However they ought to be believed and submitted to, unless we have special reason to. The Scrolls should always be read through the lens of the Holy Doctors of the Church and the Saints. These are the best interpreters. Relying on your own interpretation always leads to error. Our word, error, as you know, comes from the Flexio verb meaning to go astray, to wander off.”

 

“If canonisations and beatifications are not infallible, is not the whole thing a farce? Is not the veneration of Saints and Blesseds a complete farce and idolatry? Not so. Furthermore you seem to imply that God is junior to these pronouncements and the illicit desires of men. For example, you say canonisations cannot be infallible because the vain desires of men can influence them. Did not the vain desires of men influence all God’s works? Does God not permit evil, that a greater good may come? For example, the vain desire of Harren inspired the choice of the Prophet Owyn. If God can bring His will and His glory to bear and His infallible truth through mere fallible men with vain desires to please the world, He is all the more glorified. It is to His glory that He works through such incapable agents. In short, infallibility is there to protect us from prideful men who think they are infallible. But in any case, I urge you to read my Tract. I attach it below.”

 

 

“Furthermore you yourself ought to know that private revelations, even those of a Pontiff, are certainly not infallible or de fide.” 

8 hours ago, Boniface said:

“Orcs, elves and dwarves can join the clergy... oh my how troubling this is considering none of them can enter the seven skies. It is saddening that it does not seem that any vows are listed that all clergy should undertake including the curia, a vow of chastity, a vow of obedience to the Scrolls and a vow of poverty

" Those Vows are required ONLY by monastics and religious Orders, diocesan priests are not expected to undertake Vows of Poverty and Chastity. But this is what you get from "personal interpretation of the Scrolls by the individual believer" or whatever you advocated instead of submitting to Church dogma and practice," replies Pius harshly. "You have been a Priest for so long and do not know something so basic? No Holy Doctors have expected it, no Pontiffs and no Councils. No Canon Law has stipulated it, nor have the Scrolls. St. Jude wrote of these things as belonging exclusively to the monastic life. To impose monastic Vows on the entire clergy is wrong."

 

"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."

1 minute ago, PuritanPope said:

Notes that the common translation does accommodate a rigid translation of the Flexio, it being the ablative.

Pius apologises for his undue correction!

3 minutes ago, PuritanPope said:

Abbot Bram would correct the Father, reminding him that the plural is not employed.

Pius would reply that surely it’s genitive, of the soul, and hence animae.

“*Animae” corrects Fr. Pius.

Pius of Sutica, FSSCT, encounters the story of the apostatising nun through reading her thesis on the Church and community. He writes in his notes: “She renounced her solemn vows to God and His Prophets on the basis of bad clergy. She was unquestionably wrong to do so, for the Church is not justified because her clergy never commit evil, but rather because her doctrine and sacraments are wholly truthful. Nevertheless, her tale shows what influence we clergy can have on the faithful. St. Jude edified her into renouncing the world and embracing God; the regicide threw her into the suicidal clutches of sin. Therefore I say that a clergyman who dies in grave sin, will be judged more harshly by the tenfold, compared to the ordinary man. I suppose this is why Ven. Humbert says, “The road to the Void is paved with the skulls of priests.”’

 

“May God have mercy on her soul.” He says, even his stony heart moved with compassion, and he offers a requiem mass for Lorina Carrion. He then offers a prayer for himself, that he may never be held accountable for the loss of a single soul. He becomes very mindful and certain of the fact that he, too, will be judged one day, and will have to give an account of his priesthood. The burden weights heavily on him, until he hears the quotation in his head: “For I bring with them their remedies...”

Fr. Pius says: "I wrote these men an Epistle clearly laying out from the Scrolls the principles of justice and diligence. They have ignored this actual Canonist social teaching and instead done something that is not endorsed in the Scrolls: embargoing non Canonists. They chose the big, wavy and superficial gesture over the actual substance."

 

Fr. Pius later gives an official apology for this comment after being informed that other policies were to be announced shortly.

Pius of Sutica writes:

 

“Blessed Eminence, this news is cause for great joy. Our Holy Mother, the Church, has always encouraged with such tenderness the flower of learning, and the great Doctors of ages past, no doubt cry out in wonderous exaltation from their glorious seats in the Sky at this most joyful news. It is to their intercession, their guidance and their writings that we must look to the in study of Theology.

 

I am writing to inquire if I might put myself at the Holy Pontiff’s disposal in this matter. If you should ever need a priest to teach and be an expert on Flexio, I have made a study of that language for decades. Therefore, if, with his approval (and thereby His) the public teaching of that language be endorsed, I would like to use this gift which God has given me for the common good. So that if you wish, I should like to put myself forward as a teacher of that language and of the Holy Scriptures in your university. I remain your humble servant,

 

Father Pius, FSSCT.”

“No Emperor can overturn Divine Law or the Moral Law; an unjust is no law at all. Thanks be to God that Father Boniface has brought this to our attention,” Exults Pius.

9 minutes ago, VIROS said:

James II responds in a letter, which is made available to those who seek out The Age of Reason or this Tract in the pontifical library.

 

“Fr. Pius,

 

I thank you for your swift response, which bears witness once again to your abiding concern that our brothers not be led into error. I say first that everything you have said here is true and of much better substance than my essay. I did not speak infallibly on the behalf of the Church in The Age of Reason because, when applied as a general or universal rule, it is most fallible. My recent essay is a polemic against the times--against a certain kind of attitude, which is the worship of Reason over Truth. It is not doctrine, but one man’s limited and tentative perspective on this matter, and I weep to think that anyone may be led into error because of it. Admonished, I will correct myself, and perhaps help our readers.

 

Throughout the essay I endeavored to speak critically only of Reason but not of reason. I make this distinction because I fear the current attitude, which I believe worships reason and thereby converts it into Reason. I believe this attitude, leaving aside the idolatry of it, risks atheism; if we are told not to believe anything our minds cannot explain, it ends in disbelief in God, who the Epistle to the Magi calls the Most Unknowable. He has created a world bound up by logic for our own good--but while reason may help us along the path to God, only in desiring Truth will we find Him. Reason may lead us to the path, but only if we believe that there is Truth at the end will we take that path. We must despise any argument, no matter what logic it invokes, that leads us away from faith. I say this not for your sake, but for those who I have read my essay and risk error because of it.

 

Despising the worship of Reason becomes, if we are injudicious, a kind of antirationalism whose only consequence is madness. This attitude can easily become despising reason itself, which I reject entirely. The Exalted did not act on instinct, merely believing that they felt God welling up inside them and submitting to their desires without further examination. We each bear a little of light of wisdom that He put into us; this wisdom, clarified through the lens of worldly reason, is one of many tools He gives us to ensure we do not sin. If we do not use that light or that lens, we may fall victim to deception and consequent error, as Malin did in accepting Iblees’ false promises. Thus I apologize to anyone who reads The Age of Reason and by it comes to despise reason itself. This error is wholly my responsibility and so I beg of any reader not to fall into it. I will say now that only through careful inquiry into our faith can we ensure it is free of error: that careful inquiry is called reason. I confidently assert that reason is a vital part of the Church.

 

My essay’s intent was not to discourage anyone from reading or seeking to understand The Holy Scrolls or God, though I confess your tract demonstrates how this is its effect. I do not forbid anyone from the use of reason in spiritual matters. Though we can never truly understand God as only He does, it is our striving for Him that is Faith. Proper use of reason can hone our faith, as you have demonstrated better than I could. It is only when we use it improperly, when we worship it as an end rather than using it as a means to achieve an end, that we will stray into the worship of Reason I so criticize. That distinction is made more clear here. I have seen to it that my essay, your response and tract, and this letter, be cross-referenced with each other in the Pontifical Library.

 

I thank you for your interest in my work and your dedication to preserving me and those who listen to me from error; I thank you for continuing to act as an example of humility whom I wish to emulate and a teacher to whom I submit.

 

May He remain with you,

James II”

"Holy Pontiff,

 

I was very delighted to read your recent response to my Tract. It is good to see we largely agree on this matter in fact and in principle: you can be sure that in the fight against the errors of today, I  am among your most zealous allies. 

 

The loving interest you have taken in my work during my public life says more of your benevolent, fatherly spirit in reading than any ability I have in writing. 

 

I will continue with that project I have been enjoined upon these late few yeas.  Do pray for me as, you can be assured, I will for you.

 

Your humble servant,

 

Father Pius, FSSCT."

 

 

TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. 

Tract IV. A Vindication of the Usage of Natural Reason in Religious and Philosophical Matters and a Prediction of the Coming Age of Unreason.

In response to the recent letter sent by the Holy Pontiff, James II, whose blessed Seat is worthy of all reverence, and whose character of all admiration.

 

BY FATHER PIUS OF SUTICA, FSSCT. 

 

A REQUEST. The author of this Tract regrets that he is the last active Tractarian. The readers of this Tract are therefore entreated to pray for Fr. Seraphim and Fr. Griffith, who were the other two main proponents of this movement, and in whose unending memory this Tract is dedicated. All of our writings issue from the same school and spirit.

 

THE BLESSED PONTIFF was right to identify the error of the so-called Rationalists. However, I fear he has fallen into an opposite imbalance, which I may call Fide-ism. This a worldview that calls it futile to know God through reason, that pre-supposes Faith, and that renders dialogue with heathens all-but impossible. Unfortunately, as I will demonstrate, it is a worldview that is also self-evidently incoherent (refuting itself by nature), cannot be supported from the Scriptures, and is actively disdained by historical Church teaching. The purpose of this Tract is to demonstrate that Faith and reason are not, in fact, incompatible or in any way contrary, but are, as I wrote in a letter to this same Pontiff: “The two wings on which we soar ever upward to the contemplation of truth.” To concede the high ground of reason to the sinister snake oil salesmen of error and the furious firebrands of atheistic and anarchistic thinking, is to underestimate our power. 

 

Point I. That I Am Not Dissenting from Church Teaching, But Upholding It.

 

I.No doubt, opponents of Pontifical Infallibility, of which I have been a proponent, may well laugh with a savage irony. But they have no cause. The Pontiff’s recent letter does not fulfil any of the conditions of infallibility. First of all, it is an essay. The Pontiff did not use his seal, or list his titles. Second of all, it was not run past the Synod. Finally, it does not invoke Infalliblity or proclaim these truths as essentially de fide. It is a letter by James II to his Church, not a teaching of the Church. On no account is it to be a teaching which a Canonist is required to embrace, or is not allowed to be dissented from.

 

II.Certainly we are due to give what he has written the highest reverence and consideration, but it is not due the submission that is given to the faith of the Church alone. And as we will see, the present Pontiff’s teaching is one that squarely contradicts teachings that do gush forth from the bosom of Holy Mother Church, that is, the authoritative teaching of Saint Pontiff Everard. Therefore I declare with a pure conscience that I am not a dissenter or a rebel; I think the Pontiff is wrong in the same way he may be wrong about who will win a joust, but he remains the chief dispenser and sole steward of  our Faith, and I pray that all the creatures of the earth may be subject to his spiritual authority, for when they are, there is no danger of embracing untruth.

 

III.Nor is the letter, The Age of Reason, entirely wrong. I confess that there are things really good in it. Certainly to make an idol of reason is a grave error; and to conflate reason with rejecting immaterial truths is very contrary to reason. My prediction is that the Age of Reason will give way to the Age of Unreason. Having abandoned static, immaterial concepts like Truth, Justice, Goodness, Objective Morality, etc. (All things rooted in the Supreme Goodness, God) they will think themselves silly, go insane, and give up reason altogether. The error of the Modernists will give way to the error of what may be called the Post-Modernists. The first step is Modernism, to reject immaterial truth, and the second is Post-Modernism, to reject truth altogether, for they will have to be honest themselves and see that objective and supreme Truth cannot be achieved separate from God. To reject immaterial or supernatural truths ex nihilo is itself unreasonable. Therefore, do not credit them with the name of “Rationalist” – no, call them what they are – Modernists! They worship Modernity and that is why they reject religion.

 

Point II. That A Written Revelation Pre-Supposes the Use of Reason.

 

I.The very fact that God came to us with a written Revelation and did not just imprint the truths of Faith in our minds without difficulty, proves the necessity of Reason, and that God desires us to use it.

 

II.Words are mental concepts. They are achieved by placing symbols, called letters of the alphabet, together. And as each letter denotes a pronunciation, so the combination of these letters causes our mind to put them together, and to relate these words to their spoken names. Is this not itself a use of reason? Therefore, it is impossible to understand the Revelation or submit to it in Faith, without reason, for the very concept of a written Revelation, or even a spoken one, necessitates that God desired it to be rationally intelligible, and therefore rationally discussable, rationally provable; rationally knowable. Numbers are used in the Scrolls, such as Seven. Numbers are immaterial truths, knowable only through logic. This is not a truth that exists in our minds, as 3+4 equalled 7 long before we lived, and would still remain 7 even if all sentient minds perished and no one believed it. It is impossible to comprehend or practice the Canon without very basic logic and the recognition of objective truth before we assent to Faith, and the very fact that God has given us a Revelation in writing proves He wishes it to be this way. “But our God is in heaven: He hath done all things, whatsoever He would.” (Ven. Humbert, Pontifical Office.) 

 

III.Indeed, is it not written: “And you shall give your peers the abundance of the spirit, which is My word?” (Virtue 2:8.) God is to be understood, by what? By His word. It is a word that is above human reason, yes, but it is expressed in a way that can be understood by and through it, and, in fact, presupposes it.

 

 

Point III. That Reason is Used in the Scrolls.

 

I.Furthermore, God Himself uses reason in this Scroll when addressing Horen. Does He not invoke all the creation He has made to justify His commands? “I created the seed and the chaff” (Virtue 4:4), viz. you can see Me through the material things which I have made, just as the skill of a painter can be known from the painting. Do you not see how God does not start with the obedience of Faith, but first uses Horen’s empirical senses to speak to him? God does not pre-suppose Faith from the first man, so why should the Church pre-suppose Faith from the greater part of the world? Rather, the material world is a common ground that we all share, and it is coherent only through the immaterial truths of logic. And from this common ground we can “give our peers the abundance of the spirit” (Virtue 2:8) by imitating the way God first addressed man, making His word known, adored and loved in all the tabernacles of the world.

 

II.It is evident, then, that God wished to make Himself known through the things which He has made. And thus it is possible to know God through these things. Thus the idea that we begin with the obedience of Faith and then work outward, is not one that is in the plan of God. God rather pre-supposed self-evident material creation and reason, whereof to know He had given mankind the capacities, and from this worked to make Himself known.

 

III.And how do we imitate God in this regard? Our example is the Holy Prophet, Owyn. “Shall I worship the strong man? Shall you worship the tallest among you? No, for the glory of GOD is not in mere magnitude, but in His fullness and His perfection.” (Spirit 1:15-17.)” Owyn does not start with the admonishment, but first uses rhetorical questions to make the Godwinites think. What he writes is very reasonable. Why would any man seek to worship something base, material and passing like tallness or strength? These things whither in no time at all and themselves prove exceedingly weak. Rather, turn your worship to the immaterial and supreme goodness, who is not merely very tall, very strong or very wise; but is Transcendent Goodness Himself, and from whom all tallness, all strength and all wisdom derive. If Owyn expected the obedience of Faith from these persons before reason, he would not have used a rational argument or a rhetorical device. 

 

IV.To suppose that no man can entertain reasoned arguments about the Scrolls, and is obliged to start with the obedience of Faith, then, is one that therefore runs directly contrary to the concept of Scrolls themselves, as well as the content of them. For the Scrolls themselves entertained reasoned argument within themselves, and work from this common ground to the obedience of Faith. These passages pre-suppose that the existence of God can be known with certainty by the things which He has made.

 

Point IV. That Reason has been Used by the Holy Doctors.

 

I.My interpretation is not a novel one, speaking not from my own intelligence, which is lesser than that of the Pontiff’s nor do I speak on my own authority, which is certainly lesser than that of the Pontiff’s. Ironically, it is actually the High Pontiff’s opinion that is a novel innovation borne of his own thinking: it is the position I hold to which has always been held by the greatest teachers of the Faith. 

 

II.I mentioned Owyn’s use of reason in his Epistles. This is, in fact, the interpretation of High Pontiff Saint Sixtus IV in his Enyclical, Iustitia Dei in nostra aetate, which actually discusses how to deal with heresy and the prevailing errors of the time. This Pontiff goes even further than I do. Faith and reason are not merely two wings in harmony, but are the ”Greatest defences of the Church manifested by the Flaming Sword of Owyn.” Faith and reason, therefore, are not even complementary wings, but from that same sword of Owyn which he wielded with such awesome purpose in his Epistles. The implication of this teaching is breath-taking. A Church which refuses to reason is not wielding the Sword of Owyn given her in admonishing error; therefore a Church which does not engage in reason is not fulfilling her duty, and members of the Church who despise reasonable first principles are failing in their duty.  Notice also how Sixtus does not even need to justify this point. To the Doctors of the Church, the force of reason is self-evident. This is why I call them wings: Faith is unintelligible without reason; reason is so led astray by human error without Faith, and, moreover, there are some truths simply too sublime for the intellect to do anything but submit and assent to them without understanding them. By refusing to accept the existence of such Mysteries, the Modernist tries to get the heavens into his head; the Canonist tries to get his head into the heavens. No surprise, then, that I have predicted the descent of the Modernists into misery; no surprise that their head cracks with the capacity. And no surprise that the voice of the Holy Doctors soured upwards gloriously, illumining the world by explaining and defending the Faith.

 

III.The Church has has always embraced reason. Blessed Daniel VI, Ven. Fabian and Ven. Humbert in more recent times have all used reason to refute religious error. Blessed Daniel VI quoted in his Catechism then-Msgr. Fabian’s essay The Nature of Evil, which gave a rational and coherent answer to an objection to the Faith. These two most eminent men of our times felt no need to justify the use of reason in overcoming this error, for it was to them, self-evident. I can give divers other examples, but I want to encourage you to read these authors for yourself. 

 

IV.But chief of all the Doctors is the Angelic Doctor himself, Saint Jude. I will quote from one of his theses. “Death, the unavoidable destiny of every mortal being. The future that every man, woman, child, and animal cannot hide from. Many fear it, many embrace it, many study it and all know of it. Many ask themselves and I have been asked this question to me; what happens after death? Where do we go? Will the Creator save us or are we all damned to an eternity of suffering? Well, in this thesis, I am here to answer all of these questions. First off, the most commonly asked question, what happens after death? Well, the Canon teaches us that after death we are to live a life with the Creator for all eternity. Also, It does not make any sense for the Creator, who created us out of love, to damn us to an eternity of darkness and pain. He created every being in order for us to love him and to embrace his love for us. We are meant to live with him for all of eternity after we are done serving our purpose in this life. Now, this does include sinners as well. God is a just being and loves all of his creation, even those brothers and sisters of humanity that do not agree or love him like those of the Canon do. These people can be redeemed, I believe this because God created and knows every one of us, and even though we may not know him as well as he knows and loves us all the same. We are all children under him and even those who chose freely not to follow him, still have a chance at redemption and eternal salvation. However, if one denies the chance to live with the creator for all eternity, then they are doomed to a life of pain and suffering, as well as the knowledge that they are separated from God.” Do you not see how the Angelic Doctor engages with questions that must have been asked him at the time? The question comes: how can God created man to be damned, how is that just? Answer: God does not create man to be damned, but to live, but man, with his free will, can choose to damn himself. 

 

V.Hence it is clear that all the ancient and modern Doctors of the Church have employed reason and have engaged criticisms of the Faith using reason. This has been taken for granted; no one has had to write a Tract like this until the present time, precisely because the Pontiff’s words represent an innovation. They do not come from the Doctors and the Scrolls, which inherently embrace reason but reject fideism and Modernism. (Although, obviously, the fideist is infinitely closer to the Truth than the Modernist.)

 

Point V. That To Reject Reason is Self-Refuting.

 

I.Have those that reject rational arguments for the Faith considered that this itself is self-refuting? For, I may ask, why should you reject reason? This itself has to be rationally explained. The reason you reject the use of our human intelligence in Faith is apparently because to subject an infinite thing to a finite mind is wrong, but this argument itself supposes reason and an idea that something can be wrong pre-emptively to Faith. Additionally, how are we to discern which Revelation is the one that has been vouchsafed to us by God without the use of reason? The differences between the Canonist and the Rashidun religion are rationally discernible, but both make the same fideist claims. Only when we use reason, and see that the Rashidun religion is logically incoherent, do we see that it is not the authentic one.

 

 Conclusion: The Via Media Between Modernism or “Rationalism” and Fideism.

 

I.Friends, the way to bring a man to the Truth is not to say he is all wrong about everything. He has a deep-seated view; men rarely reject views they have regarded as self-evident for their entire lives merely because you tell them. Owyn did not begin his Epistles like that. Firstly, he told them what was right, and then exposed where the error was, in order to bring them to the Truth. The fact that Owyn writes to the Godwinites about their “virtue” (Spirit 1:4) pre-supposes a common ground – they have some idea of what virtue is. It should not be a surprise to us that we see that non-Canonists get a good deal of things right. They have virtue, they have truth, they have goodness and love. For God has planted all these things in the hearts of all the descendants. (Virtue 1:7) But they do not have these things in perfection, which can only be found in God. Therefore we ought to imitate Owyn and use our common ground with the world, using their lower case 'l' lovs to draw them to that transcendent Love, their lower case 'b' beauty to draw them to that unutterable Beauty, and using their lower case 'g' goodness to draw them to that Supreme Goodness. This is the model that the Church has given us. Faith is not a blind sentiment. I am a very unfeeling and stony man but I have come to believe with certainty. Faith is, put simply, the assent of the will and intellect to divinely revealed truth.

 

II.What I have been preaching to you is essentially a Via Media, between Modernism and Fideism. It is this:

 

i)the existence of God and some eternal truths are knowable with certainty by the natural light of human reason from the things that He has made. The Scrolls themselves vindicate this.

ii)The Revelation God has given us is unintelligible without man’s capacity for reason; He gave us reason so that we could love and know Him with it.

iii)Some truths are above reason, which is why we have Divine Revelation. Thus reason cannot pull herself by her own bootstraps to Supreme Truth, but has to be lifted up by that same Truth. It is an error to subject these truths to human reason, but it is not an error to partly understand or explain them using it. 

iv)Man’s natural pride and error often cause his reason to become clouded. So Divine Revelation allows him to know, with certainty, even those things which can be known by reason, but are not acknowledged by everyone.

v)Reason is a necessary tool to defend and explain the Faith and has always been considered such.

vi)Faith and reason are the two wings on which man soars upward to the contemplation of Truth, to which the Scrolls themselves bear witness.

vii)We ought to use the common ground we have with unbelievers to draw them to contemplation of the eternal truths of God.

 

May the blessing of Almighty God rain down upon you, and remain with you, forever and ever. Amen!

Pius of Sutica is shocked by the letter. "The trouble is that the so-called rationalists have no reason at all. Reason and faith are like two wings on which we soar forth to the contemplation of truth. The problem isn't reason, the problem is bad reason, fed by pride, which causes them to build an idol out of their personal judgement. I am afeared you go too far in your condemnation of reason. You ought to focus your attention on condemning BAD reason; to fall into a kind of fide-ism that despises reason itself, is a grave mistake, and you will never win these people over. I myself am a convert; I had to reason myself before I could assent with my intellect to the Revelation. Reason is incomplete without Faith because some truths which we ought to know really are beyond human grasp; but we could not know Faith without reason, and this is easily demonstrated." Pius advises in a letter to the Pontiff.

 

 

On 9/18/2020 at 9:35 PM, MinaGobbler said:

 

 

“I seek not happiness. It is childish to presume such of the world. The world will beat you down, it will tear you apart. You. Will. Suffer.

I seek success, for the only way to be happy is to go through these hardships, to go through all that is suffering so you can fail, over and over again until you win. You will not find toughness in the comfortable places of a mother's grasp. 

 

You say I have grown from my parents, and that I was happy with them. You are wrong. I was born in the molten core of the firelands, with a number branded on my back by my Wargoth. I was miserable, slobbish, debauched. I taught myself to read, I taught myself to improve. My name was given to me by myself. And even if my parents had taught me to read, I would not wish one more day in their house for a day in such comfortable abodes would make my mind soft, and unwilling to seek challenges for the sake of improving.”

"What is success?  What is improvement? Why do you subject yourself to an unhappy life? What is the purpose of your struggle? Why do you subject yourself to this regime?

 

If you think happiness comes from 'softness' you are already more seduced by this kind of stoic pride than I thought. It's not about the soft abode, it's about LOVE. An hero dies not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him. He submits to hardship because he loves. Hardship, "success" are miserable and purposeless without love; and love is unattainable in the end if ruined by effeminacy and the passions of the body. You are halfway there. You have the latter, but you do not have the former. But better a man had the former alone than merely the latter; I assure you that you are certainly more "successful" than I am, but my success will count for something because I submit to hardship and self improvement but for the purpose of love, not out of this self wise vanity that refuses to dependent on others or be happy.

 

Furthermore you equate happiness with lack of suffering. This is pure folly. Know you the story of a certain Humbert? He saw a beggar in the street in great physical suffering and distress. He probably could not read and write. But he was perfectly happy. And Humbert was miserable despite having all the comforts of the world. This same Humbert was much more learned. And he renounced all his wealth for a life of poverty. He suffered greatly but with unspeakable happiness. To equate happiness with not suffering is the path of cowards. The brave man suffers happily; the cowards will breaks in his effeminacy."

 

Pius of Sutica adds, much later on: “Even if you taught yourself to read and write, you still did not invent the alphabet yourself. So ultimately, you are dependent on someone, somewhere down the line.”

On 9/18/2020 at 7:38 PM, Lojo613 said:

“To the most learned Father Pius,

It is not in error that I make my beliefs known. I understood that perhaps they may cause discord amongst those who may more steadfastly believe in determinism, and I intend to stand by and defend them despite arguments that may emerge. I do not defy the dogma in my message, because pre-destination is still intact whether one subscribed to determinism or indeterminism. Imagine a maze, if you would. When you view the maze, you currently know everything, every possible choice and every possible path. GOD, being infinite and above the realm of time, knows every path that you possibly can take, as well as the final outcome of the universe itself. All actions are leading to the final outcome in the Scroll of Auspice, this is predestination. The dogma states GOD knows all that is good and evil that occurs. I do not deny this, similarly, I do not deny the transcendence of Time by GOD. I do deny the idea that GOD has full comprehension over which option, of which he knows all possible, you shall choose. The spark of free will within us begets our ability to choose, and the light of wisdom allows us to determine between good and evil. While GOD knows all paths, by His unique grace may we have but a shred of his infinite ability, His breath, which allows us choice between the numerous paths. All beliefs are borderline heretical because the border for heresy surrounds all aspects of our belief, but what is undefined in the Scrolls is not heretical by virtue of it being an uncommon interpretation.  You will have many years upon this Terra, more than any priest before you, good Father. In your lifetime you shall witness nations rise and fall and rise again. Horrors and beauty unimaginable to those cursed with short lives. Perhaps the evidence of these truths will show themselves in time. We shall see, but for now, I shall conclude with this point. Logically, we know the Scroll of Gospel to be divine revelation, from GOD directly. GOD deigned to tell us that His plan was interrupted. If Iblees were intended to create Sin, as part of His plan, would it not be simply called what it would then be, part of the plan? Why would GOD tell us that Iblees has interrupted Him, if it was indeed a forethought? The logical justifications required to attribute everything which seems of choice in the Scrolls to forethought and intent by GOD is the far more complex scenario, as it’s implications are nearly in contradiction to the very notions of free will.

I respect your opinions, and the opinions of all determinists, and welcome your arguments, for truth is not found amongst our faith except through proper presentation and argumentation of doctrine within the proper academic confines of this Holy Mother Church. God bless you Pius, and may His grace forever shine upon thee.

 

I have the honor of being your obedient servant,

Goren”

Pius replies: "I thank your Eminence for your reply. On the contrary, to deny that God does not know something is to deny He is omniscient. God is outside of time. Hence, to Him, all time has happened, is happening and will happen, all at once.  How can God not know the outcome of our free choices if I.He knows all things, and II.He knows them outside of time, and hence He has already seen them before they happen, because He is not limited by time? I am not a determinist. Man has free will, it is that God already knows the outcome of his choice. To deny this is literally to deny God's omniscience and non temporality by definition; I do not know how you cannot see how this plainly violates the most basic logic and the dogma of omniscience. I really think this is not a matter for free theological debate: it is rather a doctrinal matter. It is about the DOGMA of omniscience. I believe your radical opinion of free will violates this dogma, which is why I uss the word, heresy. This ought to be brought before a Council; I declare myself a submissive child of my Holy Mother, the Church, and will therefore accept whatever answer she prescribes. If she brands my view the wrong one, I will bow to her with all my strength. 

 

Your servant,

 

Pius of Sutica."

 

He attaches a syllogism.

 

I.

1.God exists outside of time.

2.Man's free choices happen within time.

 II.

3.God knows all things.

4.The outcome of a man's free choice, is a thing.

5.It is a thing within time.

6.Therefore since man's free choice has real outcomes within time, God must know these outcomes, because the outcome is a thing, and He knows all things, and further He looks on time from the outside, and therefore what we see unfold before us must already be known to the mind of God.

7.Therefore, that God knows our free choices pre emptively is a necessary part of omniscience and necessity.

 

 

 

 

“What do you mean by being successful?” Asks Pius of Sutica. “On the contrary, what you have written is pure misery and utter nonsense. Men are social creatures, who need one another, if you try and live your life in independence you will become miserable. To be happy we need to be tied, because if our happiness lay in helping only ourselves, we would be the only creature on earth. But on the contrary, we are created with a need for one another, and that is why the happiest people are monks and nuns, for they sacrifice their independence and live in a community where love has primacy. Do men not have nostalgic feelings about their childhood, and suppose that they were happier, then? And yet did not have this attitude of “being successful” as a child. You were entirely dependent on your parents. The very fact you write, here and now, is a refutation of own your philosophy, for you learnt to write through the teachings of others and not by your own strength. Think you that you could have invented the Flexio alphabet by yourself? Hapiness, therefore, is both altruistic and dependent, not self-absorbed, and, in the trials of life, we have recourse to the Creator of the universe, who is Goodness, Truth and Beauty Himself, and they that put their trust in Him, are never confounded even in hardship.”

”I will say though, that some of what you have written is indeed very true; we cannot advance in virtue without hardship and the primacy of the will over the intellect and lusts of the body; and no man will achieve any good without deferring gratification.”

Pius of Sutica pens a reply. "Wholly preposterous, dare I say heretical, to suggest that God did not know Iblees would disobey Him. He exists outside of time and knows all things, hence it is impossible for Him not to already know the free choices we make before we make them. Its illogical and contradictory, to say this."

 

"Rather that God knew His plan would be interrupted and permitted it so, for the allowance of the greater good, viz. the free choice, for that immortal souls loving Him freely is a greater good than not being able to do otherwise. For love is by nature freely given, and love slavishly obtained is not love at all. A slave can be compelled to work for his master but he cannot be compelled to love him. Rather that by its nature must be freely given. And since God created us "for love" He could not have made us except with the choice of evil, and so he created us knowing we would fall and already having the plan for reclaiming us for His love."

 

"I do not mean that your Eminence is in any way malicious or have been seduced by heresy and are willfully in error, but rather you are in unintentional error, for the which cause you have put forth this view. I remain your humble servant, 

 

Pius of Sutica."

 

Pius attaches a quotation from a Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, to make clear that the teaching on predestination is to be held definitively as true by all the faithful: 

 

“The Faith’s teaching of predestination, or divine-preordainment is derived from the fact that The Creator has full knowledge and control over all that occurs. Time is a dimension for the Creator so he knows everything that has happened and will happen, given that he is existed forever and will exist forever. Everything in the world that occurs, good or evil, is known by The Creator. According to Imperial theologians, although events are pre-ordained, man possesses free will in that he has the faculty to choose between right and wrong, and is thus responsible for his actions.” (As promulgated by High Pontiff Tobias I, and others.)

Father Pius, the stoic Elf who rarely displayed outward emotion, was, for the first time since his baptism, in tears. The news of his dear Confessor’s departure was not an easy blow to take, and so Pius went to the foot of the Altar, prostrated himself, and poured out his heart to God. At length, he manfully steadied himself, resigned himself to God’s will, and did several things. “Not my will, but Thy will, be done,” said he, “It is God’s will; he is in better hands than mine.”

 

To his new work, The Life of Ven. Olivier, he adds a dedication to his spiritual Father, urging men to pray for him. “For this is the only service God gives me liberty to render him, separated as we are by the wild and wasteful ocean.”

 

He then writes a note to Father Griffith:

 

”Very dear, very respected and very loved -Fathe- [the word is crossed out], Friend. 

 

Do not reproach yourself with anything for my sake. But rather, gird up your loins like a man, for you have a much better friend than I could ever hope to be, namely, Almighty God. And as I am sure you are doing the right thing and have total and utter trust in your decisions, I must accept it as coming from God. And I will simply reproduce for you the spiritual maxim of Ven. Humbert:

 

“God has created me to do Him some definite service. He has committed some work to me which He has not committed to another. I have my mission. I may never know it in this life, but I shall be told it in the next. I am a link in a chain, a bond of connection between persons.

 

He has not created me for naught. I shall do good; I shall do His work. I shall be an angel of peace, a preacher of truth in my own place, while not intending it if I do but keep His commandments.

 

Therefore, I will trust Him, whatever I am, I can never be thrown away. If I am in sickness, my sickness may serve Him, in perplexity, my perplexity may serve Him. If I am in sorrow, my sorrow may serve Him. He does nothing in vain. He knows what He is about. He may take away my friends. He may throw me among strangers. He may make me feel desolate, make my spirits sink, hide my future from me. Still, He knows what He is about.”

 

If you pray for me, I shall know more from reality than from your assurance that you are. 

 

Your loving friend,

 

Pius of Sutica.”

 

 

PREFACE.

 

“Gentle reader, 

 

The life of this holy king has never been committed to paper of itself. A certain von Manstein, father of the Ven. Humbert, wrote a general history of Savoy in which about a third was concerned with his rulership over Oren, but never has there been anything written about Olivier of himself. A great shame it is, for the holy example of this shining light in our history, this holy man and august king, would serve for the purest milk of edification for both rulers and ruled. This same Manstein argued that Olivier was a good king, but an unexceptional man, distinguished rather by his ability to delegate than any intrinsic ability. Yet the witness of history, as well as the Church in crowning him “Venerable” has convinced me that King Olivier was a man of extraordinary holiness whose life deserves remembrance and draws in it an holy imitation. 

 

For it must not be forgotten by the Gentle Reader that all credible witnesses to holiness tell us so. The Reader Pontiff crowned him with the title of “Defensor Fidei” and was his confidant and Confessor; Saint Kristoff was a key ally and friend, who entrusted his son's education to the Savoyard court, and whose presence in Olivier’s nation was so constant that most knew him simply as “Father Kristoff”; Saint Jude his comrade in the Schism War, as well as Saint Emma Vladov; Blessed Daniel VI, who is generally thought to have had a less than favourable view of Savoyards, thought him good enough to bestow on him the mark of veneration through all of Holy Church. Moreover, even Olivier’s most bitter enemies were forced to concede that, whilst they believed Olivier had fallen into evil ways, in previous times he had been a man of the highest quality, and so were forced to convince themselves that he had undergone some fall or been perverted by the Enemy. 

 

But I do not intend to speak on my own authority. I have an authority in dispensing Sacraments and preaching the Scrolls. Pray that I dispense these duties to my utmost. But as an historian the only authority I have is what I can prove with primary sources. Hence, when something cannot be supported by such, by fact of either being my own view or issuing from some kind of folk tradition, I will make that clear. As for the sources themselves, they are many: the public Acts and Letters of de Savoie, the Bulls of Daniel I, the History of Savoy by Manstein, the Eccleisiastical Histories, the Qalasheen Chronicle of the Ducal Wars, Dozens of Polemics, Descriptions of Major Events, an account of a Turkin visiting the Savoyard court, the accounts of private persons, an incomplete Lawyer’s History by Adolf von Manstein, the Feudal Law, another incomplete Fournier history, the Legenda Sanctorum, the Library Archives ((Wiki) and many more. We also, thank God, have Elves and other races who lived through that period. Manstein’s Savoyard history is the most complete account we have. The man who wrote it, we know from Ven. Humbert, was an ambitious man who almost beat his own son to death. (Confessions, 1.5.), but he is superior to most historians, in that he at least lists his sources, even if his later chapters are thinly veiled pro-Savoyard polemic. To distinguish him from his ancestor Adolf, I will cite Adolf as ‘The Lawyer’ and the other as Manstein, or the Chronicler.

 

I shall mention my sources as they come to be relevant. Any man who wishes to inquire of them, can. May God, who is my Author and thine, grant that I worthily recount the life of His true servant. I remain thy humble servant,

 

Father Pius of Sutica, FSSCT. “

 

A DEDICATION. This work is dedicated first and foremost to Almighty God. May it be as incense in His Sight. In the second place, this work is dedicated to his Pontiff, James II, who has so often and so generously sponsored my work, and has deigned to support me with his unceasing help. Please pray for all the clergy and for the intentions of the Pontiff. [A dedication appears to have been added retrospectively.] And in third place, to Father Griffith, so lately departed. This man remains my brother forever; please remember him in your prayers, as this is the only service God gives me liberty to render him, separated as we are by the wild and wasteful ocean. 

 

Venerable Olivier, pray for us. A.D. 1786.

 

I: The Young Olivier.

Perhaps, Olivier de Savoie Unhelemeted. (Felsen, 1528.)

 

I.HIGH PONTIFF Saint Daniel the First deemed Olivier worthy of the venerable title, Defensor Fidei. (Second Golden Bull of Dibley.) This was for his pious adherence to the Faith, and his devout reverence for the office of the Holy Pontiff, in contrast to the iniquity of the schismatics who were, at that time, raging against the Church. The office of the Defensor was a vast and privileged one, essentially bearing the sword of Owyn and wielding it in defence of purity and truth. This assessment by the Saintly Reader vindicates the Savoyard view: the Lawyer, a courtier of Olivier, called him “extremely pious in nature, believing in the firm doctrines of the Church of the Canon.” (Manstein, Book of Constantius, I.) The view was essentially a man very brooding, very stoic, and very austere. Firm in the truth and honourable, but perceived as cold; hardly a man possessed of natural charisma. How did he arrive to such fame in the land? Unfortunately, details of his early life are scarce.

 

II.It is God Almighty who orders the estates of men, as we know from the Scroll of Virtue. (Virtue 6:5-6) We therefore must make room for the Providence of God in the rise of this man, for, as I have said, he had no natural charisma. Details for his early life are scarce. Fortunately, we have a brief but contemporary account from the aforementioned von Manstein: “He arose as Count of Aldersburg, proving a gallant and effective leader. He later became Duke de Savoie, and married Ceriwyn Briarwood. Later, Leuvaarden became the de facto seat of power in Savoy, but now it lies in Keep Banard . It is said in this keep reside the finest silks, a testament to the wealth he accumulated during his time as Duke, and more recently as King.” (Constantius, II.) And his descendant agrees, as Ven. Humbert renders it: “Fortune made his sword; in the aftermath of the Chivay regime he made for himself an awesome treasury.” (F. von Manstein and Ven. Humbert, C.S., I.II)

 

III.In previous generations, these were the only two pieces of evidence we had for the early life of Olivier. The polemics of the Adrians are plainly wrong, and give us only wild and vague accounts of gluttony and impiety, which are plainly refuted by the good judgement of the Pontiff. However, two new pieces of evidence have been discovered, both found in the Judite archives. The first, is a volume called Notable Humans in which a short description of Olivier’s prominence is contained: “The second King of the Reformed Kingdom of Oren after the death of Andrik Vydra. Olivier possessed great political dominance over his subjects, a worthy leader to all within his Duchy. He ran the state of Savoie when the Empire fell and inspires his subjects with works such as Castle Banard, or the town of Aldersberg before its destruction. He was granted the title Fidei Defensor for his contributions to the Church by High Pontiff Daniel I at the end of the Schismatic years.”

 

IV.The other source available to us is a Turkin history written by a man called Suleyman, who was a courtier of their great leader, Orhan Sungur. This man was sent on an errand to assess the state of things in Oren, and to establish diplomatic relations with the mainland. The account was in Turkin; the translation is my own. He wrote: “This Olivier grew up in relative obscurity. He is very solemn, a big, vigorous man, and his pale skin contrasts sharply with his jet-black hair. He speaks very little of his own self, and so I had to meet the lady, Ceriwyn of Savoie, his Queen, and his chief men, Guy of Bar and Charles of the Fournier; I spoke also to many knights who belonged to an excellent military Order. Although a quiet man not given to leadership, his humble piety and wise rulership drew men who had more of these natural qualities to his breast. He arose in his youth by completing harsh penances and austerely observing his ancient religion, which is the same as the Akritian [Canonism], although they do not seem to care for Petros. [Saint Peter of Akritos] It was his ready sense of justice, his keen observance of what he calls “The Office”, and his prudence that enabled him to grow in virtue, and amass enough wealth to build a town, which is called Alder Town, and was destroyed. A man they call the weak, who was an old man, told me. But men so admired his good practice that with them he arose again to rebuild. By this mark he became a Bey, and then was hailed as Sultan of a country called Savoy, and then of Oren he is called Imperator, after a man called Andronikos Vydra died.”

 

V.Such are the written sources that tell us of the early life of Olivier. They are, admittedly, sparing. We do not even know the year when Olivier was born. Even an account of his death avails us nothing in this regard. He was already Duke when the Schism War began, and provided as much as a third of the army during that war (I would not normally trust Manstein in this, but I have reason to suspect he used an archive document to support this which has since been lost), and, since he was not born in that title, he must have been at least a young man at the time for long enough to do these deeds. (C.S. I.V.) Furthermore, a soldier’s account of the Battle of Milvian Bridge heavily notes Guy de Bar’s youth, but Olivier is not mentioned as being youthful. Yet the Lawyer’s Chronicle reveals that Olivier was still a vigorous man well into his rule, so he could not have been elderly by the time he became king. The Chronicle ends abruptly in 1502, so this was when it was written. Now, he was mentioned as having very black hair, so that not a single hair of grey could be noted. (Con. I) The average age in which men grow their first grey hairs is around 35, however, to propose him as being that young is an absurdity. Yet to propose him as being over sixty, and having completely black hair, is improbable. Nor was this the result of dye, for he was also noted for his vigorous features. So it is that he was under sixty in 1502, and probably in his prime in 1483. A good estimate, therefore, places him at between 30-35 in 1483, and 45-50 in 1502. This gives us a birth date of between 1448-1453. One document seems to confound all of this calculation. It is a document listing Olivier as a Privy Councillor of the Empire in 1457, in which case he could not possibly have been merely 3 years old. This manuscript I discovered in an old Judite archive, and it is called The Privy Council of the Imperium Tertius. I have reason to believe that this document is not authentic. The reason is this: the Orenian arms given in the document appears to be of a newer type, and there is no imperial seal: only a coat of arms printed on the side. I do not spare myself from error in this matter. It is possible that this document would be authentic, meaning he must have been born in 1429 at the latest. This would have made him 73 at least in 1502 and probably at least ten years older, and at his death in 1522, perhaps an hundred years old or more. It was during the Duke’s War (1518-21) that his health began to decline, as shall be narrated later. This means when he was around one hundred years old, according to his timeframe. But this appears to have been quite sudden. Hence it seems improbable to me, this other time-frame, which would make him around 80 years of age in 1502, and still noted for vigour, and health, and a manly appearance. 

 

VI.What are we to make of these accounts? Olivier was not possessed of either personal magnetism or military skill: it was Guy de Bar, contemporary Savoyard accounts agree, who was his main field commander. (Fournier, The Adrian Wars; Anon.; c.f. A Soldier’s Account of Milvian Bridge.) The Savoyard Chronicle tells us that he fought fiercely at Milvian Bridge, but it was clearly Guy who had the primacy in military matters, taking the grand mastery of the disciplined Order of Saint Amyas. All these accounts share one thing in common: Olivier had a meteoric rise based on simple, humble piety, and good stewardship. As God orders the estates of men, so He allowed this outwardly unremarkable, rather modest man to rise up for the good of His glory and of Holy Church. 

 

VII.Interesting is the Turkin observation that Olivier observed an early form of the Pontifical Office. This speaks of a rigorous discipline of prayer and constant meditation, for this Office is reserved almost exclusively for religious and priests. For a layman, let alone a king, to busy himself with it, each day, is quite remarkable, and shows that God had first priority in his life. From his first moment in public life Olivier proved a devoted son of Holy Church, so it is very possible that the patronage of clergymen also played a part in his rise. In any case, he certainly took the maxim of the Prophet to heart, namely that: “There cannot be laxity in faith for any reason.” (Spirit 2:13)

 

VIII.This humility and piety is what made him an excellent ruler. We know that he patronised many Novi Homines, such as Augustus Fournier and Guy de Bar. It was his ability to delegate that made him notable. Olivier had the humility to recognise the talents in others and the deficiencies in himself, and was thus able to make up for them by resigning them to God, and to those that he trusted. 

 

IX.Savoy was only a small Duchy during the Schism War, and yet provided for as many as a third of the troops of the Canonist League. All accounts agree that Olivier proved one of the most efficient and just leaders in his rise from Count to King. He achieved this by a daily meditation on the Scroll of Virtue in his daily Office, and, at each stage, did not fall to vainglory or to pride. He kept the discipline of his prayers as Owyn did in troubled times (Gospel 4:5), and it is known that after a battle he “gave solemn thanks at an high Altar.” (C.S. I.IV.) This was in order, it is said, that the crown of glory which was alone God’s might not fall to him. He had a due appreciation of the knowledge that God had ordered things in his favour, and attributed none of his success to his own ability. By this means he did everything religiously, solemnly, and with wisdom and prudence. No doubt it is from Him that Guy de Bar (As can be read in C.S. II.VIII) got his custom of hearing solemn Vespers, and giving this “solemn thanks”. 

 

X.And so here is the vague outline we can sketch from the early life of Olivier: born around the year 1450 although perhaps somewhat earlier, he was a serious and pious boy in his youth, and rose quickly from obscurity to fame, by prudence and justice. His good stewardship enabled him to raise a vast fortune, which he used to the good of his subjects, establishing the city of Aldersberg. Through all this, he remained humble and kept the daily discipline of the Office, praying all seven hours with meditations on the Scrolls, and giving thanks to God at all stages. He then put all his resources at the disposal of the Church by raising a vast army in her defence. And this next part will be the subject of Book II. 

 

XI.My father, who was several hundred years old at the time, told me that he had questioned Olivier about the nature of rulership. This is the response Olivier is said to have given: “What I set out to do was to virtuously, and justly, administer the authority given me. I desired the exercise of power so that my talents and my power might not be forgotten. But every natural gift, and every capacity in us, soon grows old and is forgotten if wisdom is not in it. Without wisdom, no faculty can be fully brought out, for anything done unwisely cannot be accounted a skill. To be brief, I may say that it has always been my wish to live honourably, and after my death, to leave to those who come after me, my memory in good works.” If this account is true, I should like to draw the reader’s attention to the use of the words “given me” and “gift.” He believed that every capacity he had came from God, and that his authority was a heavy burden to be borne only by honourable and pious living. And so may all rulers take this lesson, and all the educators of rulers, not forget humility, the root of all virtue. 

 

XII.Before we depart, it is necessary to address a tradition about Olivier’s upbringing. It is said that Olivier had a troubled childhood, with neglectful parents. This is what caused him to harden in his personality, to seek refuge in the absolute of the moral law, and to seek an upbringing in the sweet bosom of the Church. Thus is explained his devout nature: the Church became his mother, as she is spiritual mother so us all (See by the Author, Ep. Ad Ecc., 2.4), and some devout prelate took the father role in his life. Thus a mad father begat a beacon of sanity. The basis for this belief is around traditions of his death. Olivier is said to have confessed his father’s madness shortly before his own death. This tradition seems to have an early and authentic origin. The manner of King Olivier’s death seem somewhat obscured, but rumours of these words seem, according to accounts of public mourning in Oren (And, it should be mentioned, the sons of Malin, too), to have become an established fact among the people within a short time of his death. Hence I will by no means lend the weight of certainty or firmness to this, but the early origins of this tradition - including among close followers of the King - must give it a good deal of weight. 

 

II: Defender of the Faith.

Saint Daniel the Reader. (Reza, 1727.)

 

I.We now exit the world of guesswork and enter into the terra firma of history. By 1483, the Chivay Empire had collapsed and a group of iniquitous men, full of the spirit of revolution and hatred, sought to overthrow and destroy the Canonist Church. First they errected a Schismatic assembly, and then pressed for war against the reigning Pontiff. “It is clear, after examining a flood of evidence, that in this schism there is no legitimacy, there is no faith, and there is no love; there is only heresy, desperate vies for power, and the shunning of the Creator.” (Arik Vanir, On the Tragedy of Ignorance.) Unfortunately for them, God had raised up a generation of great Saints. The reigning Pontiff was the towering scholar, Daniel the Reader, and in his company were the Angelic Doctor, Saint Kristoff, Saint Emma Vladov and Saint Otto Heinzreich. Olivier de Savoie, along with the excellent king, Andrik Vydra, may be included in that company. The Schismatics formed the Vanderfell Coalition and gathered their arms. They had considerable support from the Dwarves and other foreign powers. At the start of the war, things appeared bleak for the Church. 

 

II.But “what the Lord hath sworn, He will not repent.” (Ven. Humbert, The Complete Breviary.) He who had instituted the Priesthood for our benefit, would not renounce what He had intended to keep His work until the end of time. By this time Olivier was amply established in Savoy, with one of the largest armies of the Canonist coalition, and having ruled well as we previously treated, by good-will, humility and piety, along with a good deal of prudence. Accordingly, the Schismatics singled out Olivier as a marked man, and, according to von Manstein, mocked him personally and publicly for his piety. (C.S. I.III) 

 

III.A document on the Schism War in the archives establishes that Savoy had a “disproportionately larger amount of skilled military and political leaders, as well as the backing of the Canonist Church.” Olivier left most of the command to the young Guy de Bar, and Saint Emma Vladov emerged as the overall military leader of the army. (Bl. Daniel VI, Leg. Sanctorum, “Saint Emma.”) However, he did himself fight on the field, and that ferociously, so much so that friend and enemies alike were afeared to gaze upon his transformed visage. (C.S. I.IV) Olivier knew that fighting personally, whatever his own commanding ability, would earn the respect of the people, and indeed it did, as Daniel I thought he had conducted himself with enough bravery to name him the Defender of the Faith, no small honour, for it is a title called by a devout prelate “most crucial...for the integrity of the faith and the state.” (Cardinal Pruvia, The Fidei Defensor, a Thesis.) Hence, ferocity and a calm courage in battle made up for an apparent lack of military strategy, and his ability to yield to the young and tender Emma Vladov (A female, no less, but possessed by the grace of God with the reason and strength of a man), Blessed Andrik and Guy de Bar, in matters he was left gifted shows no lack of humility on his part.

 

IV.After several years of frustrating skirmishing, with the city of Petrus lost to the cause of Schism, the decisive moment in the war came at Milvian Bridge. The archives do not give the year of this battle, except that it was between 1484-6. However, an account from an ordinary soldier attached to Guy de Bar, tells us that the year was 1485. (Soldier’s Account.) This same soldier tells us that the plan was “dictated” by Guy de Bar, but as this was probably written by a Savoyard, that is, perhaps, only natural. Since Saint Emma had assumed overall command of the forces, it is likely that she also played a large role in the battle plan. It is perhaps doubtful, however, how much tactical knowledge a noble girl like Emma would have had, therefore Blessed Andrik was probably the main Akovian voice in the plan. We can assume Guy and Andrik had the greater part in the plan, and Emma assented to it. The role of Olivier in this appears to have been very minor. We know, however, that he was present on the field, as the official leader of the Savoyard contingent. As mentioned, he fought fiercely, and inspired his men. Even the Savoyard account does not mention him as having said a single word on the battlefield. This was in keeping with his stoic character, no doubt preferring to leave the charismatic leadership of the men to Saint Emma and Guy, who “were at the helm” (Ibid) and did all the talking. 

 

V.The decisive moment in the battle seems to have been when the Canonist infantry line reached breaking point. The heretics, sensing blood and with the much larger force (According to the Temple archives), charged. But Guy rallied his men with these words: “Death is nothing, my brothers; but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily. Do not fear death. Go, sons of Horen, go forth! Charge!” (Ibid.) He and the other commanders then led a decisive cavalry charge that surrounded and shattered the enemy. From the archives and this, our only detailed account of the battle, it appears that a mixture of fatalistic desperation and profound faith were the two factors that drove the Canonists to victory. Guy appeared, by these words, to have already accepted death. It seems that no quarter would be given by the heretics, and hence, the only option was to die honourably. On the other hand, they had no fear of death, because they knew themselves to be sons of Horen fighting in the cause of Faith, and hence death, a stumbling block to the enemy, was the glory of the Canonist. These two factors made the Canonist resolve fanatical, and, with the help of God, the multitude of the heretics was overcome by a smaller company. For the Canonist had only one option: fight. The Schismatic had the additional option of surrender, and surrender he did, in large numbers, as we are told. (Ibid.) Guy could only fight and he manfully resisted the attacks of the enemy, before leading a charge of his own. Olivier’s choice of the young Guy proved an inspired one.

 

VI.We have few details of the war aside from this battle. Between 1486-1491 there were several more impressive victories, won by the favour of God against the odds. In 1487, the capital of Renatus was destroyed and with it, one of the chief strongholds of Schism. The leaders of the Schismatics were eager to spare their own cities the fate which had been visited on defiant Renatus. Hence in 1491 Petrus surrendered to Andyrk Vydra, and, in the same year, so too did Vanderfell. The war was over. 

 

VII.Olivier’s role in the war appears to have been presence, prudence and good rulership. He was certainly chief and prominent enough for the Reader to crown him above the rest. The Human Reunification Act still survives from 1491, which lists Olivier below only the King, further indicating his seniority among the victors. Interestingly enough, the Soldier’s Account appears to have been issued under the Chancery of Oren, which, we know from surviving Acts such as the Regency, was none other than Vasili Vanir himself. The soldier’s account, then, can by no means be considered mere Savoyard bravado: the Raevirs also accepted it as authentic enough to publish uncritically. The polemics of the Duke’s War claim that the Adrians were chief in defeating the Schism, yet the only account we have from the war itself, which the Adrians themselves accepted before it became a political issue, and the verdict of Daniel I, make Savoy, and thereby their chief soldier, Guy, and thereby Olivier de Savoie, the chief protagonist of the Canonist League. But Olivier’s own modesty means his role has not been fully appreciated, for he himself was quick to give solemn thanks to God (C.S. I.IV.), whereas Guy had not his scruples. 

 

VIII.We will break off to consider two stories from the war which have endured in unofficial memory, but can be found in none of the written sources. The monks of the Cloud Temple, in their long memories, told this one to me. Although I have it in quotations, I do not claim to transcribe exactly what was related to me. “Before the battle of Milvian Bridge, Olivier dressed as a common Amyasman. Reserved and withdrawn a man as he was and often-times wearing his full helm, it was possible for him to pass as a common soldier. On the night, Olivier shared the condition of his men and exhorted them to the worship of God, singing with them Canonist hymns. He who had been so distant, addressed them as “brother” and “friend.” He prayed to your God, to this effect: I despise the riches of the world, if only I could empty myself and be as these men are, common and unrecognised, with prudence my only adornment. But not my will, but Thy will, be done. And he wept, over the men who were to die, and the men whom he loved. And then the call of the men came again, and he went back for him from Guy de Bar, and he came out to him, as if nothing had transpired, and utterly composed and in his normal manner. And this story, we heard from the lips of the man you call Saint Kristoff, himself.” Again, I cannot ascribe fact to this story. I leave it here for your consideration and meditation. I think this depends on how much you credit the memory of Cloud Temple monks.

 

IX.And the other, which has not even the authority of the Cloud Temple to recommend it, and is mere folk tradition, is this: that the speech, normally attributed to Edgar de Saltpans, was actually a quotation from Olivier at this battle, or in any case, from a battle of this war. But there is no evidence for this, and indeed, Manstein relates its originality (C.S. III.XI-XII), and Ven. Humbert (Comprehensive Book of Prayers, XII), whilst the Soldier’s Account does not relate a single word of Olivier during the battle, let alone a speech. This tale must be called apocryphal. 

 

X.The war over, Andrik Vydra was crowned as King of the Reformed Kingdom of Oren. Olivier would take a position on the Privy Council in Vydra’s new realm, but what exact position, is not related to by the sources. Blessed Vydra was a popular and just ruler, and Olivier returned to Savoy in triumph. We are related details of this rulership of his Duchy during this period. “Always open to good advice and receiving goodly criticism with a kingly heart, he showed himself the very opposite of the despots that, as we shall see, later ruled the country.” (C.S. I.V.)  Ignoring Manstein’s polemic against the rulers of the Horen Restoration, he does later back up this praise with a solid example. But this is for the next chapter. Nevertheless we know that he effectively rebuilt his country during this period after the ravages of war, and was sufficiently powerful and respected to be elected king in the year 1499. I have not gone too far into the reign of Vydra, for details are scarce of his rule, much less our subject’s role in it. Suffice it to say Vydra was an excellent ruler, and Olivier was pleased to aid the King in any way possible.

 

III: His Kingship.

Guy de Bar. (Felsen, 1524.) 

 

I.We depart somewhat from chronology and take more of a thematic approach. This chapter focuses on the achievements of Olivier’s rule, the manner of his exercise of power, and his own person during the period he was king. It does not cover the Duke’s War, which will be discussed in detail in the next chapter.  Olivier was crowned in 1499 in an high degree of glory. Amyasmen and Akovian pike escorted the king, who was crowned by Branaford of Cavan, “a senior clergyman of the realm.” (Con., V.) A contemporary official account of the proceedings, called A New Chapter, a New King, upon which the Lawyer very obviously relied, tells us that the king gave a very optimistic speech, “He now arose a king, preaching to the audience of a renewed humanity, speaking of a future both of prosperity and might.”  The same account tells us that the King’s speech was met with thunderous applause and was very popular with the people. Unfortunately, no transcript has come down to us. Fresh from victories abroad and elected with unanimous consent, the reaction of the crowd is to be expected. A man of few words, I do suppose that this instance does teach that the wise man who refrains from unnecessary speech, strikes a cord when he does need to address the people.  (Whereas a man frivolous in the use of his tongue is easily ignored when it IS needful for him to speak.)  

 

II.According to the polemics that emerged out of the Duke’s War, Olivier was a man who made himself God, the worst tyranny and idolatry, spoke only deceit, and was utterly insane (Arik Vanir, Complete Works, “An Open Letter to King Olivier”), or, at best, had been “once great” but in the course of his rule had allowed himself to be perverted by evil men such as Guy de Bar. (A Denouncement of a Once Great Man.) According to the pro-Savoyard account of Manstein, he was the “star of Oren,” who, having to deal with the aftermath of the assassination of Blessed Andrik and the many wars that had ravaged the country, was wrongly blamed for all the hardships that visited the realm in those days, and whose promise was robbed by a treacherous Adrian rebellion. (C.S. I.XVII; II.III.) Unfortunately, with time, most of the accusations against Guy are untouchable. It is true that he was a severe leader, and Olivier could have kept him under a stricter regime. However, accusations of assassinating even churchmen and the High Pontiff cannot be credited, and so Olivier can hardly be called culpable in any manner for them. Indeed, the Book of the Pontificate shows this to be little more than slander: the best ecclesiastical investigators with the full benefit of hindsight and all the necessary information affirm that the assassin of the Pontiff cannot be known. (J.J. de Sarkozy, Lib. Pont., XXV.) 

 

III.As previously seen, the view of the polemics on which we are too-often forced to rely, clashes clearly with the view we have been given of Olivier in the previous chapters. It does seem very implausible indeed that a man, universally agreed to be a just and prudent one by Saint and sinner alike, crowned with the full approval of the realm and crowned with sanctity by the Church, could have very suddenly, just as soon as he happened to become an enemy of the polemicist, become a mad, malevolent sloth. From my own review of the documents and acts of his realm, and his character, it seems to me they twisted any personality trait they could get their hands on. They took a man of novel methods, and made of him an eccentric madman. They took a man stoic and with little apparent warmth, and made of him a malevolent tyrant. They took a withdrawn man who preferred to delegate tasks better suited to others as sinful sloth, even though they themselves had called it prudent before. An investigation of the war and of the peace reveals that Olivier de Savoie was not, in fact, a tyrant, but was an excellent Canonist prince, who governed his life according to the Virtues. Is Horen to be held accountable for the strife of Harren, Owyn for the discord he wrote Epistles against? The Reader for the Schism War? The Church does not think so, and nor does it hold Olivier accountable for the blood of the Adrian Wars. Personally, I think the wicked seed of the de Solas ought to be chiefly blamed. And hence, polemical slander is to be disregarded in this account. We shall instead, plainly consider the things that he did. 

 

IV.I should like to diverge briefly to discuss the nature of the Savoyard Court, and this is the perfect time to mention Queen Ceriwyn, Olivier’s wife. I am afeared that I have not done her enough credit in the course of this work, for a wife is central to the health of the husband. It appears from the Turkin account of Suleiman, that most court and household matters were delegated to her: “And so I had to meet the lady, Ceriwyn of Savoy.” Olivier, withdrawn as he was, relied on her to be his face, and so where Olivier was stoic, uncompromising and withdrawn, she represented a natural but a praiseworthy contrast, as a gregarious, vivacious and a more feminine presence. The two complemented each other perfectly. Another description we have of her comes from the Lawyer Manstein: “The Queen of Oren, and wife to Olivier, Ceriwyn de Savoie,  is distinguished by her long, fair and blonde hair, and green eyes the colours of an olive, not of olive drab, but of a radiant sort. Of her skin we can see it is very fair; of her garments are of a rich sort, adorned with jewels as clear as the waters of the Nocibur. [A river in Vailor.] The most precious jewel which she has in her possession lies on her finger, which, on the ring of her wedding, is unmatched in size, and is further demonstration of the house’s wealth. Of a much more gregarious sort, her nobility is admirable, and, though lacking the dedication to the Faith exhibited by her husband, she finds no theological disagreement with the Canon.” (Con., III.) We have reason to credit this description. Adolf, as a royal Bailiff, would have met her on many occasions, and, as she was the face of the court, would have known her at least in an official capacity. We can see that she was certainly less austere and withdrawn than her husband. Whilst her husband preferred to dress as a simple soldier and spend his money on castles like Banard and on the city of Felsen (public projects), Ceriwyn revelled in showing off the wealth of the house to which she belonged by marriage. ”To the managing of courtiers largely lay the work of Ceriywn de Savoie, whereas to the management of the council largely lay the work of Olivier the diligent. to which, as a scholar of the court of Petrus, I can testify.” (Con. XIX.)

 

V.I think it would be uncharitable to accuse her of any kind of vanity. The Lawyer does not think she was as pious as her husband, perhaps for this reason, and indeed, the Lawyer is vindicated by the only piece of writing we have from Ceriwyn, namely from a Diocesan census made during her widowhood. On the question, do you regularly attend mass, she leaves an “X” on “No,” contrasting with her husband who observed a daily office. But there are two reasons that perhaps she acted in this way, I mean that she dressed in a splendid fashion. Firstly, as the word economy is derived from the Akritian oikos, or household, so it is that the family or household is the first or primordial economy. “Ego dedi Horeno uxorem primam.” (Virtue 3:4) Viz., I gave unto Horen the first wife. The woman is given unto to be a wife for her husband, and hence it is that to the husband is granted to be the head of the household, and the wife is given over, in a noble house, to often-times, manage the domestics. Since the economy of the kingdom is much the same as the economy of the oikos, so the Queen wanted to show forth the prosperity of the household, which would increase the prestige of the Crown. But it were not necessary for Olivier to act this way, given that he was already famous for austerity and was elected king, and, furthermore, was not the face of the court. Rich clothes cannot be accounted vanity, rather the intent with which they are worn, is vanity. And, to make the second point, perhaps it shows a selflessness, a tender love which he rarely showed outwardly, the warm glow of charity, that he himself dressed as a soldier at all times, and endowed all the prestigious vestments of the state to his wife. Why do men propose with a ring? Why is it expected that man give some kind of gift or trifle to a wife? It is this: a sacrifice. A ring is entirely useless, of no practical value. The man says: I could have spent this money on food, or housing, or wine, or whatever it may be, but I choose to waste my money as incense to thee, my love, I chose to buy something whose only purpose is to show how much I love thee, a sacrifice of love, like incense burnt in thy sight. It is the same reason we build beautiful cathedrals to adore God. Olivier put this good practice not merely to a once-given token, but to the manner of living and dressing itself, and so showed himself a good and generous husband. The strong and real head of the household, the patriarch who never allowed woman to usurp his authority, but who yielded that due respect and honour due to the feminine, as to a weaker but equal member, when he was always consulting with Julia, as the Prophet tells us: “He went into the tabernacle and spoke with his wife, and she advised him…” (Gospel 2:44.)  Husband and wife complemented each other well. Indeed, Olivier there seems to have been a lot of loving trust in that marriage, for Olivier advised Guy, his ward, of the importance of confiding in family and few others, for indeed, honour was scantily regarded at that time. (From a short book of quotations called Modern Accounts of Savoy, #10.) The fact that he advises this, shows that he could, by contrast, trust in his family, and his wife. Further to this, we have accounts of genuine, heartfelt and intense mourning from her on Olivier’s death.

 

VII.Hence it is she became the face of Olivier’s court. Now we said earlier that von Manstein, that is, the Chronicler descendant of the Lawyer, gave good reason to show Olivier’s tolerant spirit of rulership. It is this happening in his court, which we fortunately have in detail due to the Lawyer’s own account, and that of his direct descendant. (C.S. I.VIII-IX; Con. Con. XX-XXIV.)  Adolf von Manstein, was, at that time, Guy de Bar’s chief Bailiff, and he instituted in that country a law synthesising all the ancient customs which he could find. This was called the Liber Ex Iustitia, or the Book From Justice (Sometimes mistranslated as Book of Justice), as supposing the book was the slave of justice, and not justice a slave of the book. Nevertheless this law was implemented to good effect in that country, but several years later, Olivier imposed a great royal law on the entire country, through the Chancellor, Jan de Savoie. This law was an excellent work, but Adolf spotted some flaws, in particular to do with a dispute over the distinction between manifest and non-manifest theft. Furthermore, he considered it problematic for the traditional County laws to be overturned, for it was a usurpation of the traditional rights of the nobles. With no fear, Adolf brought his criticisms to a direct audience with the King. Olivier heard them with “a kingly heart” as the Chronicler told us, and not only arrived at a very agreeable compromise with the Lawyer, but, impressed by the courage and eloquence with which the Lawyer Manstein had unfolded his case, Olivier gave him a seat on the royal court. This von Manstein had been a mere servant of the house of Fournier at one point, proving that common merit availed oneself greatly in Olivier’s court, rather than pure nepotism. (Indeed, Augustus Fournier himself had once been a mere leatherworker, C.S. I.VI.)

 

VII.A private correspondence between Olivier and the Lawyer reveals that the former then commissioned him to create a “Feudal Law” which would enshrine the rights of the nobility in permanence. Olivier wished to have a balanced or mixed realm, in which the Crown would have a limited but real authority, the nobility would have a good degree of autonomy, and the people would have rights to property and life. Unfortunately, the Feudal Law does not come down to us in its original form, but we do have an edition from the reign of Guy de Bar, which appears to be almost exactly the same. In fact, if there are changes, they are to be expected to be that Olivier would have left the Crown less power, for Guy was more bold in his exercise of authority. The Law is very detailed and very precise, and very, dare I say it, just. According to the Chronicler, Olivier said in reference to these laws: “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, for the souls of the just are in the hands of God, and the torment of death shall not touch them.” (C.S. I.IX)

 

VII.But laws are mere letters. The practical nature of his rule can best be seen from perhaps his peak as a ruler, the creation of Felsen in the year 1513. It was here that he proved a very great King. By delegating the courtiers to his wife and military matters to Guy, Olivier was able to focus entirely on construction. Accounts, Savoyard and non-Savoyard, often marvel at the abundant glory displayed in Olivier’s building projects. Olivier, it is said in the aforementioned volume List of Notable Humans, “inspired” his subjects with such projects; the Lawyer was similarly awed. (Con. II.) Olivier’s own self-austerity furthered the efforts, as all his energy and wealth was spent not on himself or his own health, but on the good of the citizens. A Cloud Temple Monk, who lived through the happenings, told me that several of the people of that city, seeing Olivier work perhaps 18 hours a day on plans for the city, told him “King! You really ought to stop! You will die, if you carry on working like this!” Olivier responded: “Then you can find another King.” A quotation, preserved in the Modern Accounts of Savoy, says: “It is the greatest sin to blot out humanity’s light.” Not my light, my health, or even Savoy’s light. Olivier’s vision was of a unified and glorified mankind. All his efforts were to make mankind a prestigious and visible light in the world. This he executed with utmost diligence, prudence and piety in the construction of Felsen.

 

VIII.Olivier’s relationship with the Church has been touched upon in previous passages. Hence we will move on to his diplomacy. It is best demonstrated by the Qalasheen alliance, which would prove decisive in the victory in the Dukes’ War. The Qalasheen wrote a history of their involvement in that struggle, which confirms that Olivier and his diplomats successfully used the Qalasheen eagerness to fight to draw them into a military alliance. (The Ducal Wars, III.) The Qalasheen could not seem to have gotten any practical benefit in that war, nor does it appear they were promised any, by their own accounts. Hence to induce them to join on Savoy’s side must represent a furious and brilliant effort at diplomacy.  I will preserve here the Chronicler Manstein’s transcription, or so he says, of part of a letter sent by Olivier and his court to the Qalasheen asking them for an alliance. “Good success be to the Qalasheen, and to the Orenians, by sea and land for ever: and eternal friendship is sworn” (C.S. I.X.)

 

IX.As has been the custom, I will use the close of this section to speak on matters not verified in the written primary sources. The first is a story which I heard myself from my father, in that same meeting which produced that previous quotation, namely about the natural gift and capacities given to us by God, and using them for good. It is this. There was some legal dispute. Olivier said: “This is an offence against Virtue.” A certain de Sola, snake as he was, and thinking that Olivier knew no Flexio, replied: “Quid est virtus?” Which is, “What is Virtue?” And Olivier responded back, in Flexio: “Sum Ego Dominus DEVS tuus sine pari, et Verbum Meum Verbum Sanctum est, et Via Mea Via Virtuosa est, et beneficia Virtutis ante Justos ambulantes eam irroraverint.” (Virtue 1:9) Hence using the Scroll of Virtue, in the original Flexio, to rebuke him. Now when all of them heard this, they were astonished, for they had no idea Olivier had knowledge of that language, much less of the Scrolls in it. It is a testament to the fact that Olivier kept his knowledge hidden and secret, so as to not give a pretence of learning, but to actually possess true wisdom and humility. Personally, I credit this story, because we know that Olivier prayed the Office daily, and hence would have made a daily meditation on the Scroll of Virtue. It is thus very plausible that he would have known the language and the passage, and he used his learning moderately, as in rebuking a sinner.

 

X.The second story comes once again from the Cloud Temple Monks, who were old enough to remember this story themselves. Olivier was not known for almsgiving in his life, as Saint Catherine was known, but this story is to be noted, which I do not again, claim is an exact transcript for their words, but a paraphrase: “After the Savoyard King died, we saw public mourning from all quarters. Men and women, even children came to the Cloud Temple and commented on the terrible loss. This report we received. An individual man who had once been unemployed, a widow in hard luck, or an orphan, would tell us that when they were in need, Olivier had been hasty in helping. He told each one of them to keep the fact he had helped them secret, and did it often-times at night.” It appears that many received generously from our subject, but they believed themselves unique: the stories were never corroborated and so he never had a reputation for the pious and necessary practice of giving alms. Certainly Olivier did not desire a reputation, and so kept it secret, so that, if this story can be credited, Olivier displayed the true fire of charity, in that he helped men for God’s sake and their own, rather than for his own reputation, which did not gain at all. As the Angelic Doctor writes: “One act of love surpasseth a thousand outward acts of charity.” (Thesis on Charity.)

 

IV: The Ducal War.

Allegedly, a Painting of Ven. Olivier’s Armour. The Original has not Come Down to Us.

 

I.Unfortunately, our sources for Ven. Olivier are somewhat confused and often-times fiercely polemical. The Chronicler Manstein here cannot be trusted in most respects, as he falls into an utter scathing hatred of the Adrians that cannot be credited as history, whilst his ancestor the Lawyer only chronicled the early part of Olivier’s reign, not going into the war at all. We do, however, have a few more balanced sources. Charles Fournier, a Savoyard general, wrote an history of the Duke’s War, which, although obviously weighted to Savoy, appears at least to be functional rather than explicitly political, and we also have an outside perspective: the bitter account of the Qalasheen involvement in that war. This account also has a few problems. For example, one discrepancy in it is the idea that the Lucienists alone bravely pushed the pontoon bridge over the river at Barrowyk. However, my father himself heard from Morgan Diggory, the Siege Master, that this was contrary to the truth: Diggory himself led the charge. Moreover, there are other problems such as confusion over the Adrian goals in the war, and calling Olivier de Savoie an Emperor. Nevertheless, this account remains invaluable as a perspective that is not interested in the benefit of either side. It does, however, try to emphasise the importance of the Qalasheen. Other accounts we have are personal journals and the like: a knight, Sir Francois, the squire of the Lord Marshal, Augustus, wrote an account of his doings in the war, and Annabelle d’Amaury, his wife, kept a secret journal the entire time, which I found in the archives. Her story is a tragic one, and I urge you all to pray for her soul. These new and unfamiliar sources must serve as our bulwark in charting the Dukes’ War.

 

II.Certainly the Dukes’ War represents the twilight of Olivier’s years. It is probably here when he fell into serious illness. “...Many people fear that King Olivier is not in good health. He rarely showed his face throughout the war, and his council had to do much for him.” (Annabelle, entry #2.) Olivier is only mentioned once in Fournier’s eyewitness chronicle of the War, and this in relation to inspecting fortifications; he never appears in person in Francois’ Annals, and the Qalasheen history reports that they were disappointed when Olivier was not able to meet them. (Duc. Wars, VII.) We can therefore see that there is total agreement among the sources: Olivier stopped being an active king around the time the Dukes’ War began. The cause? It seems some illness or disability was commonly afeared at the time.

 

III.Now the war, then. In 1516 there arose a wicked seed, Xavier de Sola. The Archives tell us that he perpetrated a massacre of Adrian officials at Wett, when brought to trial by them. The de Solas claimed that it was a show trial on political grounds, and therefore that Xavier’s heinous action could be justified. This appears to be false, for it was not accepted by anyone, least of all the High Pontiff, Sixtus, who excommunicated Xaiver. Now things moved very fast when the Adrians brought an Ultimatum to the Crown (Which survives), in which the Vladovs threatened the Crown: “There is only one recourse for a King who, like yourself, is judicious and sagacious. There is only one recourse to salve the bleeding wounds of your Kingdom. Either the heads of the de Sola traitors are mounted on pikes by the order of the crown and their members stripped of nobility, or we will purge the family de Sola from this kingdom by whatever means necessary, root and stem.” (Various, Ultimatum of Redmark.) This appears to have been an irrational action provoked by anger. Whilst Xavier had doubtless committed a grave evil and the Crown’s response had been slow, to demand the total and wholesale massacre or disgrace (practically leaving them open to murder by Adrian retainers in any case) of the entire house was essentially unreasonable. Furthermore, to demand it and essentially threaten war made war inevitable by putting the Crown in an untenable position. Hence the evil of de Sola, the (very understandable) rashness of the Adrians and the (also very understandable given the King’s illness, and the Adrian wrath being so awful and pressing) slow royal response made a tragic war inevitable. On another note, this confirms that the assessment of Olivier’s character by later Adrian polemics is completely unfounded, and he was universally appraised as a just man. Only when he became their enemy in the war did he suddenly and coincidentally become the man who claimed to be God, as Vanir wrote, (Arik Vanir, Complete Works, Open Letter.) before being hailed by the selfsame men as “judicious.” Savoy tried to limit the violence by permitting a private feud between the two houses, but, at the bloodlusting Arik Vanir’s urging, Adria aimed for the total overthrow of Savoy and made open war.

 

IV.Only one piece of writing survives to us from Olivier de Savoie, and it is his response to this very rebellion, his only public act, apart from the inspection of fortifications, in the war. There might be temptation to think that the King had this essentially written in his name, given he almost never wrote. But given he almost never wrote, it must be hard to believe that he would suffer any man to write for him. Therefore, I will treat this as directly from the pen of the King. “The Crown commands that this band in Adria stand down and lay down their arms, and its officers relinquish themselves of this vile plot to set Our land afire, and turn themselves in, alone, for justice. If this does not occur, then We will assemble a glorious host of loyal and righteous countrymen, and march into the East to reclaim it for the one Realm. In this time of turbulence, pretenders and treachery We implore that all true Orenians declare their loyalty.” (Olivier, Royal Response to the Adrian Rebellion.)

 

V.Olivier’s tolerance was at an end. “There is no greater sin than to blot out humanity’s light.” Now that the unity of mankind itself and the integrity of the Crown was at stake, war was the only option.

 

VI.The greater part of the war was fought in large skirmishes, which ended almost entirely in Adrian victories, as the Qalasheen (Ducal War, II), Archives, Fournier (Adrian Wars, II) and Francois agree. We have an account of a skirmish in which, faced with a more numerous enemy, the Savoyards were forced to retreat into their castle of Peremont. Here they were derided as cowards for refusing to face the rebels on the open field. Francois replied: “You fools think you can win a war with battles ALONE? Truly, you are the epitome of foolishness!” (Annals, VI.) The Savoyards knew from their own experience in the Schism War that the Adrians made for brave soldiers, and they made plenteous use of skirmishers, especially lightly armed cavalry with bows and javelins. This meant that the Adrians dominated the field, but could rarely challenge the infantry and dismounted knights of the Crown in their castles. 

 

V.The Savoyards employed what I may call the Augustan strategy of war, after Lord Marshal Augustus. They refused open battle for a whole campaigning season and re-doubled their forces, whilst whittling down the enemy by attacks on their supply lines. At length, they developed a strategy to defeat and encircle the Adrian infantry, and withstand the light cavalry in the field. We are led to believe from Francois that Augustus spent this time procuring better “surcoats”, which I suppose, is viz. armour. (Annals, VI.) They also grew in numbers and allies. Fournier, himself a Knights Lorraine commander, recalls that at one time the Lorraine stood at 1,300 in a major skirmish (Adrian Wars, II), whilst contemporary Savoyard accounts agree this had grown to 4,200 by the decisive part of the War, the Battle of the Blackwald, which we move on to now. (Adrian Wars, X; c.f. Annals, IX.) The Chronicler Manstein accepts Fournier’s assertion that the numbers of the two sides were roughly even, but does not give a specific number or composition, merely saying that the forces were around 20,000 on each side. (C.S. I.XIII) The Qalasheen account gives no numbers at all, but asserts that it was a very large force and that, “quite literally”, the Qalasheen made up about half of this army. (Ducal Wars, V.) A small, anonymous archive document supports the Qalasheen assertion, but no further detail is given. Manstein indicated that he had seen disagreement with Fournier’s assertion elsewhere, implying that others believed that the Loyalists had the greater numbers. To find evidence for this, I sought evidence in the papers of Ven. Humbert, whose father was this same von Manstein. It appears there is a much more detailed archive document known as Battle of the Blackwald. This asserts these numbers for the Crown: 19,000 Infantry, 2,000 Cavalry, and 1,000 Archers, and these for the Rebels: 14,700 Infantry, 1,000 Cavalry and 1,000 Archers. This contrasts with Fournier’s claim of 20,000 on each side. (Adrian Wars, X.) Fournier does not directly contradict the Qalasheen claims, but merely lists them as a major ally, implying they were a force that made up a good deal of the army, but probably not as many as the Qalasheen liked to boast of. He does not appear to have even known of such Qalasheen claims. 

 

VI.I have laid out all the existing evidence. The archive document, Battle of the Blackwald, appears to have been not contemporary, but far later than the other archive document which gives no numbers at all. First of all, because these clearly deviate from the main chronicling work of the archives, and was probably added later to give further detail, and further, because Manstein himself refers to it as a contemporary discourse, implying that this document was written in or around his own time.  (C.S. I.XIII) Manstein had valid reason for accepting Fournier’s numbers, which, combined with Francois’ forms the only, if biased, eyewitness account we have, apart from the Qalasheen. As to the Qalasheen claim, I have no doubt that they made up a very substantial part of the Loyalist army, but I cannot give full credit to their claim, mainly because, as seen earlier, they were accustomed to exaggerate their own part, as in the earlier claim about the Siege. My estimate is this: large armies on both sides, numbering about 20,000, with a slight Savoyard advantage in numbers. Of these Loyalist forces, 5,000 were Savoyards (4,200 belonging to the Knights’ Lorraine), 6,000 were other Orenians, 7,000 were Qalasheen and 2,000 other allies. The numbers thus laid out, we will see to the battle itself. That about half of the army belonged to Orenian allies shows the success of Olivier’s shrewd diplomacy, and, although he was certainly not present at the Battle, certainly it was a victory which he could be said to have engineered, when he had not been so badly afflicted.

 

VII.We have several and more complete accounts of Blackwald than we do of Milvian Bridge, which perhaps goes to show how far scholarship and learning had come during the reigns of Blessed Vydra and Olivier, even in times of war, which is to their credit. Francois’ account runs thus: “We saw the enemy and that they were nearly as numerous, and had those most cowardly horse archers. I was alongside the Lord Marshal in that battle. He beat and bore down all before him as he advanced, the infantry pushing at their centre and the de Sola cavalry obliterating their flanks. We killed many Adrians that day, and a glorious victory was won. It was the turning point.” (Annals, IX.) Fournier runs it thus: “Headed by the Lord Marshal the army engaged the Adrians, the result something in between a skirmish and a field battle. The Lord de Bar maintained the centre line, his iron hold cementing the discipline of the majority of the troops. A cavalry charge by the de Solas smashed through the enemy flanks and it became a rout, the men of Savoy and Lorraine having earned victory.” (Adrian Wars, X.) The Qalasheen: “The battle raged on for hours, with the forces of Adria suffering the most casualties. It got to the point where we needed to end this battle here and now, and so a charge was called. The forces of Khalestine and the Crown charged into the forests and slew all the remaining soldiers left. The Adrians were fierce warriors however, it was no easy win or slaughter. We suffered casualties just as they have, except not as much as they have. Our forces never let up as the Adrian forces were forced to put a full retreat with what little soldiers they had remaining. They were no longer able to defensively hold the road anymore, enabling the Crown to begin [the] siege against Adrian lands.” (Ducal Wars, V.) 

 

VIII.These accounts, and that Battle of the Blackwald document which I discussed earlier, seem to point to a series of events: firstly, a skirmishing phase in which Adrian missile cavalry and archers wrought some havoc, before being countered by mostly Qalasheen skirmishers and Augustus’ bold initiative, and nullified. Secondly, there was an Adrian attempt to force the Orenian centre. The Loyalist infantry, commanded by Guy de Bar, resisted manfully a very heavy Adrian attack, with both sides fighting very valiantly, and heavy casualties to each side. At last, after most of the day was spent and a bloody stalemate seemed the most likely outcome, a cavalry charge, which seems to have been spearheaded by the de Solas, turned the vulnerable Adrian flanks and caused a general rout. What followed was an almost total destruction of the largest Adrian field army ever assembled. This was, it is agreed, the turning point of the war. The Chronicler von Manstein asserts that the Crown would have gained the victory (C.S. I.XIV), but the de Solas only made the outcome more decisive, yet this is to be doubted, for all our contemporary sources highlight their charge as decisive, and moreover Manstein was, understandably, no pleader for the de Sola cause, and in fact despised Titus de Sola. All sources point to heavy Loyalist casualties, but an almost total destruction of the Adrian forces, except the Battle of the Blackwald, which puts the dead at 7,000 for the Loyalists, and 8,000 for the Rebels. It seems to be a discrepancy, as all the other sources imply a pyrrhic but triumphant victory, including the earlier Archives. Hence the very great number of dead, which is horrifically high for the victors of a field battle can be accepted, but, to reconcile this with the other and more contemporary sources, Savoyard and non-Savoyard alike, the majority of the rest of the Adrian force must be reckoned to have also been killed or captured. A very great number of Oren’s bravest men had died, on both sides. It was a great tragedy, and one which Olivier had sought to avoid, but could not. No record of solemn thanks from Olivier comes down to us from Manstein for this battle, in contrast to Milvian Bridge. Olivier was utterly absent, and we have no record of even any reaction from him. It appears, by this time, he was all but incapacitated with illness, a standard whom the Loyalists could rally around, but devoid of any real power of rulership by some kind of terrible affliction. But perhaps another reason Olivier did not give thanks this time, was that more discretion was called for. Some of these men had been his comrades in the Schism War some decades before. Whatever the culpability of the Ducal Coalition, the ordinary soldiers were to be mourned on both sides, for they were simply men following their liege. Wherefore the war-weary Francois declared: “By the accounts of that sacking I can say that the average man is dedicated to no crown, but to peace. I tell you, the common serf in the fields does not care for the squabbles of duke so-and-so, and this and that.” (Annals, XI.) 

 

IX.It is because of King Olivier’s incapacity, previously proven, that he cannot be called culpable for the shameful events that were to transpire. The absent Francois, a man very scrupulous in observing the Code of Chivalry, was warned by comrades “thou wouldst have been glad not to be there” because of the brutality of the sack of Brelus. (Ibid.)  The Qalasheen also tell us of their horror at the news: “Just as we crossed the great river onto the southern continent, we were given word from a rider from the north of “great news”. We had believed it was the Crown of Oren attempting to reward us for our valiant aid, but instead were told something far more disheartening.. The man spoke to us of the “great sacking of Brelus” and how the forces of the crown burnt down the Adrian Capitol to ash, butchering everyone within the walls. The man even boasted about the slaying of CHILDREN! He spoke of this as if it were a great accomplishment, to kill innocent men and women, elderly and young. “None were spared!” he exclaimed with delight, which caused my men to encircle the horseman in preparation to do to him what the Savoyards did to Adria, but I ordered them to stay their blades. I gave the rider a single chance to leave before we would kill him for his insolence and intolerance, and luckily for him he understood and rode off as fast as he could.” (Ducal Wars, VII.) It appears that the chivalric Francois’ comrades spoke only a brutal sack, which was, according to the rules of war as devised under Adolf von Manstein in peacetime (And apparently accepted by the Adrians), a regrettable but necessary part of war, when the garrison refused to surrender. A commander cannot be held responsible, according to these rules, for sacking a city that refuses to surrender. (Strategy by the Brothers Manstein, IV.XII.) 

 

X.But it appears that more than a mere sacking took place. After having taken the fortress-city of Barrowyk with an heroic attack after a stubborn defence, Brelus was utterly vanquished, with all its persons. My uncle, who himself interviewed eyewitnesses, told me that these words were spoken by Guy de Bar to the hopeless garrison of that fortress in an effort to make them surrender: “How yet resolves the governor of the town?This is the latest parle we will admit; Therefore to our best mercy give yourselves; Or like to men proud of destruction Defy us to our worst: for, as I am a soldier,A name that in my thoughts becomes me best, If I begin the battery once again,I will not leave the half-achieved Brelus Till in her ashes she lie buried. The gates of mercy shall be all shut up, And the flesh'd soldier, rough and hard of heart, In liberty of bloody hand shall range With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass Your fresh-fair virgins and your flowering infants. What is it then to me, if impious war, Array'd in flames like to the prince of fiends, Do, with his smirch'd complexion, all fell feats Enlink'd to waste and desolation? What is't to me, when you yourselves are cause, If your pure maidens fall into the hand Of hot and forcing violation? What rein can hold licentious wickedness When down the hill he holds his fierce career? We may as bootless spend our vain command Upon the enraged soldiers in their spoil As send precepts to the leviathan To come ashore. Therefore, you men of Barrowyk, Take pity of your town and of your people, Whiles yet my soldiers are in my command;Whiles yet the cool and temperate wind of grace O'erblows the filthy and contagious clouds Of heady murder, spoil and villany. If not, why, in a moment look to see The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters; Your fathers taken by the silver beards, And their most reverend heads dash'd to the walls, Your naked infants spitted upon pikes, Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused Do break the clouds, as did the wives of Horenry At Krug's bloody-hunting slaughtermen.What say you? will you yield, and this avoid, Or, guilty in defence, be thus destroy'd?”

 

XI.Perhaps the garrison madly resisted with manful courage because they thought that these were mere empty words, a bait to get them to surrender. Perhaps they were not aware from Olivier, that just and humane Prince, was at the end of his powers, and that Augustus, Guy and Titus de Sola were the sole powers in the realm. Perhaps they thought that these rules could well apply to foreigners, but surely the Orenians could not massacre their own countrymen in such a way? Upon my honour, I know not, but it seems meet to me that we should put down the subsequent downfall of Savoy to this selfsame blackness of sin; for the which cause God humbled that country for carrying out these awesome threats. But for these events Olivier cannot be called in any way culpable. He was obviously crippled in mind and body by this point, and far removed from events. Hence it is no surprise that the Savoyards fell shortly after Olivier’s death, for God was willing to spare them on the account of so righteous a man, but when he died, He spared no effort in revenging upon them that very iniquity which they had been pleased to inflict upon the Adrians at Brelus, as He had been pleased to punish the Adrians in the first place for their treason against Olivier. To Him be glory and honour, forever and ever. Amen.

 

XII.And truly meet and just it is, our duty and our salvation, always and everywhere to give God thanks. The Lord Holy God, Supreme Goodness, Unspoil’d Love and Complete Truth, who didst rise up the wise and great Olivier to be an example of all the virtues, a wise king, a great lawmaker and a man who hath wielded the great and venerable purifying Sword of Owyn, and also to pray in reparation for our sins past, and seek forgiveness and love. Little children, love one another, for the true lover of God loves that which God has made, and therefore if any man saith that he love God, and hateth his brother, this main is a liar. Therefore let Adrian and Savoyard, pauper and prince, beggar and blacksmith, male and female, Elfkind, Orckind, Dwarfkind and Mankind, cry out with one voice with all the Holy Angels: “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts! Heaven and Earth are full of Thy glory! The fruit of Virtue cannot rot!”

 

V: Conclusion.

I believe that the Chronicler Manstein may have drawn this rare unhelemeted view of Olivier. Being born a long time after, it is likely from description. Most people at the time could not view Olivier unhelemeted. 

 

I.So ends our history. Olivier died in the year of Our Lord 1523. (C.S., I.XVII.) The circumstances of his death are confused, although he is supposed to have died of drowning, or illness.

 

II.The light of Olivier, a mere ray of that “humanity’s light” which he did labour to maintain, and which itself is less than an atom to that Light who created it, still, nevertheless, shines down onto us today. The Savoyards cast him as their leader and champion, the Adrians as the man who claimed to be God, and the Qalasheen first knew him as a brilliant diplomat, and then as a crippled old man. All of these views are incomplete, because they all lack the one thread that ties his whole life together. That is, the love of God. It was humble piety, and daily meditation on and petition for the Virtues, that made this man a great and holy one. His tools are not out of reach to you. You have the Virtues also: you need only ask for them, and meditate on them. Hence Olivier is not best understood as a great king, the champion of a people, or a crippled old man, but is best understood as simply being holy, as the Church has said. And not with a holiness that is out of reach to us, but something that can be grasped at, namely, to simply ask God to make us holy. This is all we need do, and He will do the rest. Amen.

III.And I hope you, gentle reader, will join me and hoping and praying that one day we may all say: Saint Olivier of Savoy, pray for us! May the pure love of God reign in our hearts forever and ever and ever! Amen!

“An excellent work that will enrich future generations,” acclaims Father Pius of Sutica.

Pius of Sutica, seeing the exchange of letters between the two learned men, writes:

 

"Your Eminence,

 

Your report was enlightening. As shepherds entrusted with a flock, we ought to be sober and watchful, for our foe goeth about the world like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. My recommendation is this: that this Epistle be publicly declared Apocryphal, and that it be marked as a condemned literature. Any Canonist who reads it without permission from their Bishop, incurs grave sin. This is a way to balance the need to study heathen and heretical texts with the safety of the faithful. I remain your humble servant,

 

Pius."

 

Pius forbids his parishioners to read the text, declaring it apocryphal.

Pius of Sutica grows half-mad having to make a history of Olivier de Savoie with nothing for source material but scathing polemics like these.