Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness - Always Forward, Never Back

Kwasniewski's last chapter is a summation of the rest of the work he has written. He explains how much of it has been his personal experience. In my summary, I have also added my own personal thoughts as both a Traditionalist and a Greek Catholic. I am sympathetic toward the Tridentine movement because when I see the harm that the West has done to itself, I can only begin to fathom what the harm the West could do to the East. I entered into the Eastern tradition because the East has historically been known to resist both change and development in Liturgy and theology. Though the East has certainly grown the Liturgy and appropriately cultivated adding flowers here and there. St. Pulcheria and her brother Theodosius II gave us the "Holy God, Holy and Mighty, Holy and Immortal" hymn of the Trisagion, the Holy Emperor Justinian the Great gave us the "Only Begotten" hymn, the Archangel Gabriel appeared to Nicholas Chrysoverges and wrote down the hymn "It is Truly Meet", and Patriarch Nektarios of Aegina gave us the hymn "O Virgin Pure". For the East, when liturgical changes occurred, we added them. There was no clinging to a pseudo-antiquarianism as with these Novus Ordo proponents. That is appropriate for Tradition because when a seed is planted, it grows into a flower. It's supposed to. It's not supposed to be cut back down and de-rooted to an extent it becomes a seed again or mutated into something that it's not supposed to be. That's anti-traditional.

Kwasniewski summarizes then, in what way, the Mass points to the future while encompassing both Tradition and the present.

"1. Our Eucharistic worship signifies Christ as a past reality, since He has already come into the World as the Word-made-flesh and has accomplished plentiful redemption. This may be called  the principle of tradition, or the handing down of that which is already given: hoc facite in meam commorationem.

2. The Mass signifies Christ as a present reality, the One who irrupts into our time and space in the miracle of transubstantiation, taking the gifts we give Him here and now and changing them into Himself. ...

3. The Mass signifies Christ as one who, having come, and being in our midst, is awaited in His glorious coming to judge the living and the dead and to bring to completion the whole of history and the entire cosmos, from prime matter to the loftiest seraphim." (279-280)

This is the three-fold nature of Christ. He is the one who was, is, and always shall be. He is the one who is ever-existent, eternally with the Father and the Holy Spirit. This is where the Mass is oriented to point us toward. Anything less simply isn't Catholic.

There is a tremendous push-back against the traditional liturgy in the West as covered by the previous chapters of Kwasniewski's Noble Beauty. Kwasniewski defends the position in this last chapter why we need the traditional Mass. He asserts, with Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, that "if we desire an increase in priestly and religious vocations, if we seek conversions to the Faith, we need 'hard-identity Catholicism'" (284). This is the summarization of everything that has culminated in the pages of these works. We can have a Catholic identity or we can refuse a Catholic identity and look like the world. But what is it we are converting to when the Catholic creed simply just reiterates the talking points of the world? I had a discussion a while back with a parishioner who made statements masked in theological nuances which sounded more like the re-hashed claims of the New Age spiritual movement and secular humanist doctrines than what I've read in the writings of the saints. I made the point that at my baptism, I renounced Satan and all of his works and the works of this world. I renounced secular humanism which I once held to. I renounced the New Age cult rubbish that my mom reads. What is it I exactly converted to if I must hold this garbage still in order to be an orthodox Catholic? Conversion requires a change in heart. If there is no significant difference between being a Catholic Christian and a worldly human being, then what point is there in becoming a Catholic? This is what our Novus Ordo friends seem to fail to see because they live in the garbage dump of individualism masked as anti-liberalism. They live in an American-centered tradition, not a Catholic Tradition. The Liturgy is our Catholic identity.

King Olaf II of Norway

Olaf Haraldsen, the son of King Harald Grenske who was one of the petty kings in Norway, played an important role in the conversion of the Norwegians to Christianity and centralizing them through the Christian faith. Olaf was raised by his step-father, Sigurd Syr, as his father was killed in battle by the Swedes. In his coming of age, Olaf led a series of military campaigns against the Swedes, the Finns, and the Danes under the guidance of his foster-father, Hrane who was also called the "foster-father of kings". He was called a king as was Norwegian custom at the time to declare any one who commanded a ship in battle a king. Since the Swedes were responsible for killing his father, he began his military campaigns against the Swedes. He fought off witches in Finland, and then came to the West to assist King Ethelred in battle against the Danes. The Danish King Svein was mysteriously killed during these campaigns, some attributing the death to St. Edmund. This was similar to how St. Mercurius is traditionally held to have felled Julian the Apostate. It is highly possible that Olaf converted to Christianity while assisting the English against the Danes. He had planned to head out to Jerusalem but a figure appeared to him in a dream and told him that his bloodline would reign in Norway forever and that he must return to become king of all Norway.

In the Summer of 1012, King Ethelred died and the Danish King Canute took Queen Emma's hand in marriage and forced the Anglos under the dominion of the Danes. He had Ethelred's son Edmund, who had succeeded his father as king, murdered. This move effectively placed Canute as the de facto King of England and an usurper at that. Olaf was requested to remove the presence of the Danes from England and if he could do so, he would be granted all of Northumberland. Olaf came with force and seized a significant portion of Northumberland from the Danes. Having accomplished that, he returned once again to Norway to drive Earl Hakon, the Dane, out of Norway and did so with the promise that Earl Hakon would leave Olaf alone and never engage in battle with him again. Olaf had now secured the wrath of both the Swedes and the Danes in his young military career.

Olaf was determined to free Norway from the yoke of foreign masters and has become a symbol of fierce nationalism for Norwegians,

"I know the inclination of the people well, -- that all want to be free from the slavery of foreign masters, and will give aid and strength to the attempt. I have not proposed this matter to any before thee, because I know thou art a man of understanding, and can best judge how this my purpose shall be brought forward in the beginning, and whether we shall, in all quietness, talk about it to a few persons, or instantly declare it to the people at large. I have already shown my teeth by taking prisoner the Earl Hakon, who has now left the country, and given me, under oath, the part of the kingdom which he had before; and I think it will be easier to have Earl Svein alone to deal with, than if both were defending the country against us." (The Saga of Olaf Haraldson, 33)

Due to his fierce nationalism and defense of his family, many of whom held positions as kings over the differing parts of the Uplands, for Norway was divided into different lands governed by individual kings at this point, Olaf would gain favor among the electing kings. These kings met in a counsel to elect a supreme king. There had not been a supreme king of all Norway since Olaf Trygvason had died in the year 1000. He had been a convert to Christianity but seized most of the property of the descendants of the Harald Harfager that the kings of the Uplands couldn't determine what god it was he had actually believed in. They placed their trust in Olaf Haraldsen though.

But Earl Svein, who had served as an Earl alongside Hakon over Norway, was a traitor. He stirred up rebellion against Olaf, among those who had even sworn allegiance to Olaf. Olaf was left alone with his step-father Sigurd Syr, who continued to supply him with the men he needed in Viken in order to fend off the rebels. Olaf came with 100 well-equipped men who drove the Earl out of Norway. After a battle where Svein's men suffered massive losses, the Earl went to seek his brother-in-law, Olaf the King of Sweden, for assistance against Olaf the Thick. The Earl would die in Sweden. Trondhejm and Viken both received Olaf as king and built the Church of St. Clement in Nidaros. At this point, those who were aligned with Olaf the Thick were deeply Christian. Before the battle against Earl Svein, they held Mass, and they went into battle with crosses painted across their shields.

"It was King Olaf's custom to rise betimes in the morning, put on his clothes, wash his hands, and then go to the church and hear the matins and morning mass. Thereafter he went to the Thing- meeting, to bring people to agreement with each other, or to talk of one or the other matter that appeared to him necessary. He invited to him great and small who were known to be men of understanding. He often made them recite to him the laws which Hakon Athelstan's foster-son had made for Throndhjem; and after considering them with those men of understanding, he ordered laws adding to or taking from those established before. But Christian privileges he settled according to the advice of Bishop Grimbel and other learned priests; and bent his whole mind to uprooting heathenism, and old customs which he thought contrary to Christianity." (ibid, 56)

Olaf, having heard how other regions within his domain had allowed practices contrary to Christianity, set out to reform the code of laws in order to orient them to Christianity. The decline of Paganism within Europe is seen through the works of Sts. Olga, Ludmilla, Wenceslaus, Vladimir, Olaf. The turn of the millennium signified the collapse of Paganism and the victory of Christianity, resulting in the beginning of civilization. The Christianization of Norway was more successful at first in the region of Viken as the people there were more acquainted with Christian tradition, but slowly, Scandinavia was fully recognizing Christianity much as Rus' had done shortly before and Bohemia before that. After gravely inflicting punishment on Christians who were adhering to Pagan practices, five of the Upland kings rebelled against him. Olaf subdued those kings, one of whom was Hrorek, a kinsman who would make an attempt on the king's life, and he seized their lands. Olaf would eventually exile Hrorek to Iceland, refusing to put the rebel to death on account of his relation.

Olaf had been pursuing an alliance with Olaf of Sweden. But Olaf of Sweden remembered the early campaigns of King Olaf and the raids he had made against the Swedes. For this, Olaf of Sweden held a permanent and insatiable grudge against the Norwegian king. Yet he had promised his daughter Ingegard to Olaf II. However, due to his grudge, Olaf refused to make good on his word and married Ingegard to the Russian king Jarisleif instead. The Earl Ragnvald, who had been behind the previous marriage arrangement and had desired peace with Norway, was given the Earldom of Lagoda as a marital gift and had Olaf of Norway married to the Swedish king's daughter Astrid instead. This enraged Olaf of Sweden even greater. The Swedish people, troubled by the broken promises of Olaf, held a Thing to coronate Olaf's son, Onund the kingdom. The Swedish land was divided between Olaf and Onund with the Norwegian King Olaf forming an alliance with Onund. This alliance strengthened in 1021 when Olaf of Sweden died and Onund became sole ruler of Sweden.

Olaf continued the spread of Christianity throughout Norway, often through forceful tactics. The Halogaland people were fierce opponents of Christianity. Disgusted by their Pagan practices, Olaf threatened them to embrace Christianity and give up these practices. They did so and churches were built and Norway continued to be a bastion of Christianity in Scandinavia thanks to the tactics of Olaf. Though this may be seen as imprudent on the part of the Norwegian King, it should be noted that Christian law gives legitimate rulers the right and authority to protect the spread of Christianity by the usage of force, censorship, and suppression.

Ten years into Olaf's reign as Supreme King of Norway, Canute the Great of Denmark and England forged a territorial claim on the Norwegian lands held by Olaf. This included all of the Uplands, the Orkney Islands, the Faroe Islands, and Iceland. Canute the Great was hellbent to claim them back for himself stating that because of the Danish Earldoms of his father, he was entitled to those lands. Canute was able to fuel rebellion in the midst of the Norsemen by planting spies among their ranks. Much of the Swedish men deserted from Onund and only the strongest remained with the brothers-in-law as they fought against Canute and the rebels. The Saga explains why the people eventually rebelled against St. Olaf.

"He punished great and small with equal severity, which appeared to the chief people of the country too severe; and animosity rose to the highest when they lost relatives by the king's just sentence, although they were in reality guilty. This was the origin of the hostility of the great men of the country to King Olaf, that they could not bear his just judgments. He again would rather renounce his dignity than omit righteous judgment. The accusation against him, of being stingy with his money, was not just, for he was a most generous man towards his friends; but that alone was the cause of the discontent raised against him, that he appeared hard and severe in his retributions. Besides, King Canute offered great sums of money, and the great chiefs were corrupted by this, and by his offering them greater dignities than they had possessed before. The inclinations of the people, also, were all in favour of Earl Hakon, who was much beloved by the country folks when he ruled the country before." (ibid, 192)

Olaf fled to Russia where his sister-in-law, Ingegard was with King Jarisleif. There, the Queen offered him dominion over any Russian lands he desired, including Bulgaria, and Olaf even considered joining a monastery. He realized that his deposal had ended his reign. There was nothing he could do to win his throne back. But in a dream, he heard Olaf Trygvason call him to remember his right over the land of Norway and with few men and the aid of Onund, he would head back to Norway one last time.

Olaf was questioned as to whether he should mutilate the traitors and plunder them as he had done though with the Pagan sympathizers, to which he responded,

"The bondes have well deserved that it should be done to them as ye desire. They also know that I have formerly done so, burning their habitations, and punishing them severely in many ways; but then I proceeded against them with fire and sword because they rejected the true faith, betook themselves to sacrifices, and would not obey my commands. We had then God's honour to defend. But this treason against their sovereign is a much less grievous crime, although it does not become men who have any manhood in them to break the faith and vows they have sworn to me. Now, however, it is more in my power to spare those who have dealt ill with me, than those whom God hated." (ibid, 217)

Not intent on punishing them more than necessary, Olaf even distributed pieces of silver on behalf of the souls who had betrayed him.

King Canute had placed a bishop on the episcopal throne in Norway who encouraged and egged on insurrection against King Olaf. This bishop rallied up the bondes who would soon fight against Olaf. Olaf II would eventually fall in the Battle of Stiklestad. Thorer Hund and Kalf Arnason confronted the King and killed him. It is uncertain if Kalf dealt the wound in the neck or if it was Thorer Hund. Thorer found the King's body lying on the ground and saw the King lying as if asleep, not dead. The blood still flowing, it went up to where Thorer had been wounded and healed him as if he was never wounded. Thus, Thorer would be the first of the King's opponents to testify of his sanctity. King Olaf had also healed the son of a widow when he was in Russia of a boil that grew and festered upon his neck. Olaf's body was hidden from the rebels during the skirmish but a blind boy who had not seen anything in much while found himself in a cabin where the body of the king had been hidden and was found to be healed of his blindness upon the unbeknownst to him encounter.

King Canute broke many of his promises and placed his son Svein on the throne of Norway rather than Kalf Arnason, the leader of the rebel army. Svein ruled as a tyrant, which greatly led to the people's penance over their slaying of the saintly king.

"King Svein introduced new laws in many respects into the country, partly after those which were in Denmark, and in part much more severe. No man must leave the country without the king's permission; or if he did, his property fell to the king. Whoever killed a man outright, should forfeit all his land and movables. If any one was banished the country, and all heritage fell to him, the king took his inheritance. At Yule every man should pay the king a meal of malt from every harvest steading, and a leg of a three-year old ox, which was called a friendly gift, together with a spand of butter; and every house-wife a rock full of unspun lint, as thick as one could span with the longest fingers of the hand. The bondes were bound to build all the houses the king required upon his farms. Of every seven males one should be taken for the service of war, and reckoning from the fifth year of age; and the outfit of ships should be reckoned in the same proportion. Every man who rowed upon the sea to fish should pay the king five fish as a tax, for the land defence, wherever he might come from. Every ship that went out of the country should have stowage reserved open for the king in the middle of the ship. Every man, foreigner or native, who went to Iceland, should pay a tax to the king. And to all this was added, that Danes should enjoy so much consideration in Norway, that one witness of them should invalidate ten of Northmen." (ibid, 253)

The attitudes of the people began to change and they chased out Bishop Sigurd who had inspired the insurrection against King Olaf and Olaf's body would be disinterred by Bishop Grimkel who had discovered the body almost as if it had been asleep for a year, rather than dead. Many more healings were attributed to Olaf II. Olaf fell on July 29, 1030 A.D. and was disinterred on August 3, 1031 A.D., only a little over a year after his martyrdom. His body was moved to Clement's Church which was replaced by Christ Church. It is possibly now hidden under another Church today called Saint-King's Church in Norway, but archeologists have been trying to determine whether this is so. In the year of 1034, Kalf Arnason made a venture all the way to Novgorod where he inquired of King Jarisleif to make King Magnus, the son of Olaf II, King of Norway. Those who had been Olaf II's opponents in battle were reconciled together with Olaf's son.

Olaf II is a symbol of nationalism for his fight against foreigners sapping off the fields of a country they belong not to. Olaf II is greatly venerated in Norway to this day. With the emphasis on solidarity, we tend to forget the Church also holds to subsidiarian values as well. If these values are neglected, we fall under the tyranny of the collective brain. Olaf II embraced both as he united his country through Christianity and ended Paganism and crushed heresy and he liberated his country from foreign oppression at the same time. Today, the liberal media talks unendingly about the dangers of "Christian nationalism" and yet we see it as a virtue in Olaf II. What the media hates is Christianity in general because if people believe in God, there is no means to oppress any one into collectivism. St. Olaf II of Norway, pray for us!

History of the Franks, Book I

Here begins St. Gregory of Tours's Historiae Francorum. This is the earliest written source on the Merovingian dynasty that exists today. Gregory introduces himself and provides the reasons he writes the work. He introduces himself as a Catholic, makes his creed known, renounces the Arians, and explains his purpose in writing is to show how many  years have passed since the creation of the world. "[O]f that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the son, but the Father. ... They should understand that by this Son is meant the Christian people." (I) The coming of Christ will not occur unless the Antichrist shows up first introducing circumcision in the Temple of God. This is what St. Gregory understands Antichrist will do. It is certainly not an infallible position but we ought to consider this when we think on coming Antichrist. St. Gregory is living in a time period in which people have been ravaged by plague, persecution of the True Faith, and apostasy. Many people thought the world was ending in his day just as many people believe the world to be ending now. His intention is to show that the world has existed much long this far, and there have been much worse days leading up to the current day.

St. Gregory begins his history by going through the Scriptures, all the way through the Roman Empire and Gaul as it existed under the Roman Empire. We see in St. Gregory a Christocentric hermeneutic throughout his coverage of the Scriptures. In fact, this is how St. Gregory goes through his entire history. This shows for a Christian, not just sacred history, but also secular history, is Christ-centered, looking toward the Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection, and having this focal point of the telos of history. This Christocentric hermeneutic permeates his introduction and his entire coverage of the Old Testament. Christocentric hermeneutics are a hermeneutical method that understands Sacred Scriptures in light of what is revealed in the revelation of Christ in the New Testament. This seems only one-sided in that it focuses only on the incarnation but a proper sense of Christocentric hermeneutics is all-encompassing. While for Evangelical Protestants, the Christocentric hermeneutic is limited to the life of Christ and after the Resurrection and for liberal Protestants, it is limited to the words of Christ only, for a Catholic, Christocentric hermeneutics point us toward the Divine Liturgy, the sacrifice of the Eucharist, the Church, and the ultimate eschatological goal for all humanity.

God's wrath is conceived of in the writings of Scriptures but it is something understood much differently in the Traditional theology of the Church. The Lord has anger but it is not to be thought of as a man. How could God wipe out all of humanity in anger as He did in Genesis 6. As an Anglican, this text always confused me. In fact, this text confused me until I read the narrative of St. Gregory of Tours on the Old Testament's Sacred History. "[God] is moved to anger so that He may fill us with awe, He drives us forth so that He may call us back. He is enraged that He may reform us. ... [T]he shape of the Ark represented the concept of the mother Church, which moves forward between the rocks of life here below, protecting us from the evils which threaten us, and defending us in her loving embrace and guardianship." (I.4) St. Gregory sees the Church at the center of the narrative of the Deluge for it is in the Church where men are saved. Outside the Church, the men drown in the deluge of evils, pestilences, heresies, idolatries, and various immoralities. God's wrath is not directed at people but is directed at actions. It is directed in order to reform. It is directed at the oppressors, whether they be the chains of sin and corruption or the demonic forces that seek to pursue us and hold us captive.

The flight from Egypt through the parting of the Red Sea is seen with the New Testament revelation of baptism in mind (I.10). "Some pass through in the first hour: these are they who are reborn by baptism. ... Those who are converted later in life pass through at the third hour. Those who control the lust of the flesh pass through at the last hour." St. Gregory also sees Zerubbabel as a Christ-like figure in the Old Testament. The captivity that the Israelites were under "is a symbol of the enslavement that the soul of a sinner is led...unless some Zerubbabel, that is Christ Himself, can rescue it" (I.15). St. Gregory's Christocentric reading of the New Testament is nothing new. This is a common theme in the Church today as we look to baptism as being what frees us from the captivity to the Devil and sin. We are led into the Ark of the Church. The very area where the Faithful stand during the Liturgy is called the "nave" a word which comes from the Latin for "ship" or "ark". Just as Zerubbabel rebuilt the physical Temple, so does Christ build the spiritual Temple.

On events concerning ancient history, St. Gregory understands Chus, the son of Ham, as the founder of the Zoroastrian religion (I.5). The Pharaoh who perished during the pursuit of Moses and the Israelites he states was Cenchris (I.17). Controversially, he calls Julius Caesar the first Emperor of the Romans (I.18). This is also where he first describes the founding of Lyons in Gaul. The forty-fourth year of the reign of Octavian Augustus from whom the name of the month of August is derived, is the year in which Christ was born (I.19). St. Gregory describes the persecution of Christians in Gaul specifically but also throughout the Roman Empire. Beginning with the Emperor Nero and going through to Diocletian in chapters 25-35. St. Gregory's view is consistent with what the classicists conclude of today's repertoire though these same classicists refuse to consider it an actual persecution. The persecutions against orthodox Christians were from the inside as Christians contended against heresies and from the outside as they contended against the Pagan Romans and the Pagan Alemanni who would take over the Gallic region.

Nero launched the first campaign against Christianity in the Roman Empire (1.25). After him, Domitian. It was under Domitian that John the Apostle would be exiled. After Domitian, the persecution temporarily ended yet again and "climbed into the tomb while still alive. It is said that John will not experience death until our Lord shall come again at Judgment Day, for he himself said in his Gospel: 'I will that he tarry till I come.'" (I.26) Under Trajan, Clement, the Bishop of Rome suffered (I.27) and under Antoninus, Justin and Polycarp suffered (I.28). Photinus, the Bishop of Lyons was martyred and St. Irenaeus who was sent by Polycarp converted the whole city of Lyons to Christianity. There, the Devil resumed his tyranny and began a persecution so fierce that "rivers of Christian blood ran through the streets" (I.29).

He describes several martyrs, including the Bishop Dionysius of Paris, under the brutal persecution of the Roman Emperor Decius. Saturninus of Toulose, when he was put to death, exclaimed to two of his priests, "Now I am about to be sacrificed and the moment of my immolation is at hand. Stand by me, I beg you, until I meet my end." (I.30). Valerianus and Gallienus were twenty-seventh in the succession of Roman Imperial rule and they would begin a fierce persecution of Christians. I was here that King Chroc of the Alemanni moved in and subdued Gaul but as when Satan casts out Satan, another demon moves and brings friends with him. Chroc "destroyed down to its very foundations every single building which had been put up in ancient times" (I.32). Privatus refused to sacrifice to the devils of the Alemanni and Chroc had him beaten to death with sticks, after which, Chroc was captured in Arles, "submitted to various tortures and then died by a blow from the sword, paying the penalty for which he deserved for the sufferings which he had inflicted on God's people." (I.34) Under Diocletian, Quirinus had a millstone tied to his neck and was thrown into a river yet remained afloat for no sin weighed him down. Quirinus yielded himself up to God saying, "Lord Jesus, You who sit in glory on the right hand of the Father, do not allow me to be taken from my course, but receive my soul and deign to add me to Your martyrs in eternal rest." (I.35)

Here is a difference between humanistic "pro-life" doctrine and the Christian's outlook on life. The Christian views life with a teleological goal of eternity. Thus, repentance is what is most important, not a consistent position to extend life as long as possible. We see this reflected later in St. Gregory the Great's response to the pandemic breaking out in his own time frame. The response from the Pope was not to quarantine everyone but to call Christians to repentance, to reflect on the life they've been given, and to gather all the Christians together in prayer of repentance together. Much different than today's world in which the solution is to isolate all men from each other in order to hopefully tack on a couple extra days to one's life which is mortal at any rate and assume we hold control over all events in the course of history. The former is truly a commitment to the beauty of life and the beauty of living. The latter is narcissism.

Under Constantine, Christianity was legalized but struggles would ensue amongst his successors, some of them being Arians. It is after Constantine II that St. Gregory seems more observant to the Western half of the Empire. In fact, he skirts over many Eastern Emperors but begins a focus on Gaul. St. Martin comes to Gaul during the reign of Constantius, performs many miracles, destroys pagan temples, raises the dead, converts men to Christianity and reposes in Tours. St. Hilary went to Heaven in the town of Poitiers under the fourth year of Emperors Valentianus and Valens (I.39). Rome was a diarchy after Diocletian, reverted back to a monarchy under Constantine and after Constantine went back to a diarchy. Valens attempted to conscript monks into his military and perished in battle from the Goths (I.41). Gratianus succeeded Valens as the sole monarch and made Theodosius his colleague in the East (I.42). The Roman commander Maximus made a coup against Gratianus after conquering the Britons through his tyranny. His soldiers viewed him as Emperor. He captured Gratianus and put him to death. Theodosius, a God-fearing man and devoted to God, with the help of God, stripped Maximus of his imperial authority and had Maximus put to death. Rome was once again a monarchy. (I.43) St. Gregory then describes Bishop Urbicus's fall into temptation, and then the successors Legonus, Illidius, and Nepotianus (I.44-46).

St. Gregory concludes this chapter with the feud that broke out between the monks of Poitiers and the people of Tours over the burial of the body of St. Martin. The monks of Poitiers argued that St. Martin should be buried in their city since he had received his clerical orders from Poitiers and the people of Tours had his miracles. The people of Tours argued that he should be buried in their city since he was their shepherd and that he performed more miracles while in Poitiers than he did while in Tours. During the night, the Poitiers party supposed to be guarding the body fell asleep and the Tours party was able to seize the body and by the will of God allowing this to happen, the body of St. Martin now sleeps in the city of Tours. (I.48)

Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness: An Homage to Our Lady

This chapter of the book really only makes sense in light of the Western liturgy. Some contend that the Church has lost its masculine touch. If anything, the Church has lost its feminine touch and has embraced this effeminate masculinity that is so degrading it might as well be barbaric and bland. This is the Protestant abuse of the Novus Ordo. But proper reflection on Our Lady is something that is brought to our attention by the Tridentine Mass. Peter Kwasniewski talks about his devotion to the rosary in this second to last chapter of the book. How does the Mass compare to the rosary in his perspective? Although I pray the rosary, it isn't generally considered an Eastern devotion so for someone reading this book as a Greek Catholic, this is the chapter that makes the least sense to me in favor of the Tridentine Mass but it certainly makes a strong case for it from a Western perspective.

The purpose of the rosary is repetitive meditation that intends to lead us inward toward the mystery of God. In the East, we have repetition too. We pray "Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner!" We pray that constantly. We make certain it is constantly on our lips and ingrained into our hearts. When it comes to critics of the Tridentine Mass, they hate the repetition of prayers that occur within it. Why do they hate it so much? Repetition is a key to remembering things, to grafting things into the mind. That is why repetition is so important. When it comes to a song, we hear the chorus over and over again so that by the end of the song, the chorus is ingrained into our heads. This is why music can be such a bad influence on us. If we are hearing toxic sludge, our mind is repetitively filled with toxic sludge. The Apostle Paul calls us to think on the things that are true, noble, right, pure, lovely, yielding kindness, these things think upon. Repetition is a mental meditative tactic to turn our minds toward what is important.

Thus, repetitive prayers in Mass are far from being tedious, they are what cements our minds to bask in the glory of God. They train our minds to be elevated toward holy things. This is why the prayers of the rosary are repeated. They also call us toward mystery. They call us toward participation in the Life of Jesus. When we go through the rosary, we start with the Annunciation. This is the beginning of the earthly Life of Jesus. This is the beginning of his humanity and our godliness. This is the point in which man and God become one inside the Virgin. As we go through the mysteries, we finally end up at the coronation. The Virgin Mary is both a type of the Church as a type of the Ark of the Covenant. She is both the Church and the Ark of the Covenant. We enter into the Virgin Mary's life because we are the Church as well. At the end of our life with God on Earth, we are called up into death with Him so that we are then raised from the dead and we become crowned with the glory of Heaven. This is how the rosary is much like the Mass.

Kwasniewski reflects on three things that if we are to forget about them, will result in the collapse of Catholic theology. Reverence for the Fathers and Doctors, reverence for the sacredness of the liturgy, and reverence for the Christian society these things seek to build. With the modern liturgical revolution, all three of these things are lost and stripped away. I don't imagine it possible to have the Tridentine Mass with the theology of Pope Francis. In fact, many of these recent Popes sound rather foreign when one becomes basked in an Eastern perspective, but Kwasniewski does speak from a Western perspective. But the Tradition, overall, encapsulates so much of the lives of the saints that it is impossible to revere them while not thinking that something is missing currently. We have seen how lack of reverence for the saints has been something that the Novus Ordo has produced. Thus, to embrace their theology, one cannot refuse to worship as they did.

Reverence for the sacredness of the liturgy has become optional these days. The more extraordinary ministers, the more the Eucharist seems to be degraded. I remember the treasurer at the Anglican Mission I went to telling me how some of these Traditionalist Catholics don't think that their own brethren even believe in the Eucharistic theology of the Church any more the way the body of Our Lord is handled. How can one be so casual about Our Lord's body and yet still profess the belief in transubstantiation? It doesn't make sense. If one believes what they are fed is truly divine, then one must treat it as God. If one treats God so poorly thinking that it's just a wafer or even just any other normal object, then reverence for the holiness of the Tradition is lost.

Reverence for the Christian society that our fathers sought to build has been lost. In today's Church, the theology has been so consumed with focusing on the dignity of man and the rights' of man, one wonders if man has become God too soon. It really does look that way given the attitude and current theological trends of the clergy. I have seen more clergy this past year standing up for democratic values and condemning even the classical values of the ancient traditions in favor of democratic values. Whether they are doing this for money or not is uncertain but it really seems to be the former. Since when does the Church stand for democratic values? Never. At least not until now. The overwhelming trend in the Church has not been toward the glorification and promotion of Christendom, far from it. The trend in the Church has been toward the glorification of man, man's rights, and man's free will. This is an idolatrous form of humanism.

All three of these have been lost. Is it any wonder why the liturgy has been crumbling apart, the Church is rife with scandals and schisms, or that ravenous wolves have taken the place of shepherds? May we all recollect on who we are. May we all wake up from this amnesia. May we look backwards so that we may look forwards. O Lady and Theotokos, Ever-Virgin Mary, pray for us!

St. Olympias, a model for the current crisis

St. Olympias was a close friend of St. John Chrysostom. The latter became a spiritual father to the young Olympias and they grew a close relationship in their persecution. St. Olympias was born to nobility, her father Seleucus being a count of the Emperor and another of her ancestors, Ablabius, having filled the consulur office in 331 and later served as praetorian prefect of the East (New Advent: St. Olympias). She was left an orphan and came under the care of her uncle Procopius who was a good friend of St. Gregory Nazianzen (according to Butler's Lives of the Saints, she was brought up by the pious Theodosia). St. Gregory had even been invited to her wedding to Nebridius. Some sources state Nebridius died before the wedding, others don't give a specific indication. Because the traditional position on marriage includes consummation of the marriage to consider the man and woman wed, it is evident that she is, as Our Lady was, unwed. Nebridius's death left her a childless widow. Though the emperor and her relatives would pressure her into marrying another, she resisted and voluntarily gave her whole life to Christ instead (The Prologue of Ohrid, July 25). The emperor even attempted to have her property confiscated but after the war with Maximus in 391, restored her large fortune (New Advent: St. Olympias).

She was appointed a deaconess by the Patriarch Nectarius. We do not know much about the ancient order of deaconesses other than it did have a clerical function in assisting the women at baptisms and chrismations as these were done in the nude and it was indecent for men to look upon the women as it happened (Apostolic Constitutions, ch. III, sec. 2). It also appears that the order of consecrated widows responded to the instruction of the deaconesses (ch. 3, sec. 1, VII, XIV). Thus, some have pondered whether they were a separate order of widows or distinct altogether from the order of consecrated widows. According to the same source, the deaconess is not to bless and have no role equivalent to that of priest or deacon (ch. VIII, sec. 3, XXVIII). It is likely also that they were picked out from among the nuns or the consecrated virgins and consecrated widows though it is difficult to tell (New Advent: Deaconesses). Either way, they were most certainly a clerical order though whether this was considered a major order or a minor order is difficult to establish. My own parish has been practicing nude adult baptisms lately. We may want to consider addressing the need to have an order of deaconesses established. As St. Olympias was both a virgin and a widow, it is more than likely from her piety that she was picked as a deaconess.

It was during St. John Chrysostom's exile that a fire broke out in the Great Church and caused several buildings around the Great Church in the city of Constantinople to burn down. Due to the Empress Eudoxia's hatred of the moral preaching of St. John Chrysostom and St. Olympias's close friendship with the former patriarch of Constantinople, she was accused of starting the fire and sent into exile along with him. The story doesn't end with their reconciliation to the Church in their material life but it certainly holds a joyous ending. For we know that Our Lord promised a day coming when people would persecute His faithful followers in His own name (John 16:2). Both died in exile outside of communion with the Church as a consequence of the Empress Eudoxia's persecution of the orthodox faithful in the Church, but God's faithful trampled on the damned as both are rightfully venerated as saints in the Church today. She desired a burial at sea, her coffin was subsequently thrown into the ocean by her friends (The Prologue of Ohrid).

This suffering that she and St. John Chrysostom bore for the Church in crisis is a model for the current crisis we are undergoing as pious people become more and more observant to the fact that the earthly hierarchy hates us. St. John Chrysostom wrote upwards of seventeen letters to the Holy Virgin Olympias addressing his own exile and encouraging her as she began to fall into despondency exhorting her to stay faithful to the Church and not give into those persecuting the faithful of the Church. One letter compares the situation of the faithful to those who are shipwrecked at sea waiting for the Master to lay down His rod and stop the storm, rectifying all things.

"We behold a sea upheaved from the very lowest depths, some sailors floating dead upon the waves, others engulfed by them, the planks of the ships breaking up, the sails torn to tatters, the masts sprung, the oars dashed out of the sailors' hands, the pilots seated on the deck, clasping their knees with their hands instead of grasping the rudder, bewailing the hopelessness of their situation with sharp cries and bitter lamentations, neither sky nor sea clearly visible, but all one deep and impenetrable darkness, so that no one can see his neighbour, while mighty is the roaring of the billows, and monsters of the sea attack the crews on every side."

Another letter addresses the Holy Virgin's battle with despondency as a greater conquest than the sufferings experienced by Job.

"Therefore even if you remain at home, and are set fast in bed, do not consider your life an idle one; for you undergo more severe pains than those who are dragged, and maltreated, and tortured by executioners, inasmuch as in this excessive infirmity of yours you have a perpetual executioner residing with you."

He further commends her struggle against sin in another letter.

"Thus women have been crowned victors, while men have been upset; so also boys have been proclaimed conquerors, while aged men have been put to shame. It is indeed always fitting to admire those who pursue virtue, but especially when some are found to cling to it at a time when many are deserting it. Therefore, my sweet lady, you deserve superlative admiration, inasmuch as after so many men, women, and aged persons who seemed to enjoy the greatest reputation have been turned to flight, all lying prostrate before the eyes of the world, and this not after a severe onslaught, nor any alarming muster of the enemy's force, but overthrown before the encounter and worsted before the struggle, you on the contrary after so many battles and such large muster of the enemy are so far from being unstrung, or dismayed by the number of your adversities, that you are all the more vigorous, and the increase of the contest gives you an increase of strength."

As she finally goes through her own exile, he further exhorts her to hold fast.

"Rejoice therefore and be glad both for yourself, and for those who have died a blessed death, not in a bed, nor in a house, but in prison, and chains, and torment; and bewail those only who do these things, and grieve for them."

In all of this, St. John Chrysostom reminds her that the struggle for the Christian, the true struggle for the Christian, is the struggle against sin. The worst of the bishops will place themselves in authority in the Church but as we steadfastly struggle against sin, their wickedness will be made known to all. As we struggle ourselves against the evil one, we will shine forth their wickedness. While on this earth, St. Olympias and St. John Chrysostom would not prevail, they most certainly have and did prevail in Heaven. Purified in their struggle against sin, they drew closer to the Will of God experiencing the deification of the soul and while they found themselves out of communion with the Church held captive by wolves in sheep's clothing, they now find themselves fully reconciled, venerated perpetually by the Church that was freed from the bondage of these wolves through their own heavenly intercession. Sts. John Chrysostom and Olympias, intercede for us sinners!

The Holy Prophet Elias

Elias is the most significant of the prophets of the Old Testament. It was Elias who showed up along with Moses at the Transfiguration and it is Elias who is prophesied to announce the second coming of Christ. It was the character of Elias which St. John the Baptist carried with him as he preached the Gospel announcing Christ's first coming. St. John was not literally Elias though so the prophesy of Elias's announcement of the Messiah's coming is only partially fulfilled by John in the incarnation. It will be wholly pronounced at the very end of the world. Elias vigorously combatted the apostasy of Israel and denounced the wicked king Ahab who governed like a tyrant.

Elias had prayed to God to bring a drought to Israel. Being the only faithful when Ahab had ruled, his life was in constant danger from the king but God had granted him His full protection. The drought in Israel lasted for three and a half years, during which time, Elias lived with a widow in Zarephath who had only one son. She had only a small amount of meal in a jar and oil in a jug but Elias announced to her that this would not dry up until the Lord would send rain to the earth once again. And each day, she would use the oil and meal to make bread and it would not dry up. It continued to last as Elias had prophesied it would. The widow of Zarephath is remembered for her hospitality to the Holy Prophet. It also came about that her son died while Elias was with her. She started blaming Elias and accusing God until Elias raised her son from the dead, foreshadowing Christ's resurrection of the only son of the widow of Nain and the resurrection of Christ himself. Seeing Elias raise her son, she realized Elias was truly a man of God.

Elias would return one last time to Israel as the drought was ending and would put the prophets of Baal to the test. They would see whose God could bring fire. The prophets of Baal gathered the driest of sticks hoping this would set a fire as the prayed. Elias, seeing their god fail to light the fire mocked their idol and their moronic faith in such a Pachamama character like that. Elias gathered around moist sticks and branches, placed water around his pile of sticks, and prayed God light the fire. The fire ignited and the prophets of Baal were dumbstruck yet refused to believe in the God of Elias. Elias then slashed their throats. Knowing the king had him on the run, he would flee into the wilderness.

There we see Elias in a much different state. For many of us, we see the Church in crisis just as it was in the days of Elias. We cry out to God and we wonder if we are the only one with the true faith. This was Elias before his final reward. On his way to Horeb, he was strengthened by an angel and as he dwelt in a cave, food was brought to him by the ravens showing that even the most rapturous of birds must submit and obey the will of God. He cried out, "I have been very zealous for the Lord, the Israelites have forsaken the covenant, I am the only one left, and now they seek to take away my life." Elias begged for death. Then, standing before the mountain, he observed the great wind which broke the mountains. But the Lord was not in the wind. Then there was an earthquake. But the Lord was not in the earthquake. Then there was a fire. But the Lord was not in the fire. Finally, there was silence. It was in the silence that Elias heard the voice of God calling out to him. It is not in the noisiness of the world that we find God but when we rest our hearts to the point of silence. This is when we confront our own thoughts and when God calls our thoughts to Himself.

Elias was commanded to appoint Elisha as his successor and he was taken up in the wind, with Elisha following him, in a cloud of fire on a chariot. Elisha received the mantle of the Holy Prophet and Elisha carried with him the charism of his elder. Elias did not die a natural death. According to tradition, when the Two Witnesses at the end of time announce the coming of Christ and expose the works of the Antichrist, they will be put to death by his ministers. These Two Witnesses are reckoned to be Enoch and Elias for neither Enoch nor Elias have died. Thus, although Elias has not died as of current, it is inevitable that he will be slaughtered by the Antichrist. Holy Prophet Elias, pray for us as we find ourselves alone against those who ought to be our brothers!

Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness - The Peace of Low Mass and the Glory of High Mass

In this chapter, Peter Kwasniewski discusses the most notable differences between low Mass and high Mass. When I had first heard of these words, I was confused by the terminology thinking that a low Mass was a Novus Ordo Mass. It's not. A low Mass is a Mass where the prayer is done without chanting. Whereas the high Mass is done with chanting. This chapter of Kwasniewski's is a matter of meditation. He shares his personal observances and how they apply. I feel similarly in my experiences with the Divine Liturgy as well. Though I have never been to a Tridentine Mass as I refuse to attend a parish where a sketchy Mass has been observed, I have experienced both chanting and non-chanting liturgies. I have noticed that many of things Kwasniewski meditates on, I can relate to here as well.

For instance, in the low Mass, where no chanting is done, the prayers bring us to a state of silence. We observe our own silence with God and we are confronted with the noise of our thoughts. We are attuned to the reality that God is not to be found in the clamoring noisiness of life, the earthquake or the wind or the fire, but in the soft whisper. We are brought to a sense of aloneness where we are not truly alone but find ourselves instead with the angels, looking at our Creator, and observing together the saints who look longingly toward the Creator. God becomes our only desire. There is a self-emptying taking place. This is where the soul is led to in silence because it now sees that it must do battle against its thoughts. It is in thought where sin initially blossoms. We cannot always control our thoughts but we can control our actions. It is in the silence where we are forced to confront our thoughts and the confrontation against thoughts leads to the self-emptying.

I have been to many Anglican Masses and most of them have been of the low Mass. It is here, that the only noise that permeates seems to be the priest's prayers, the chirping of birds, and the woodpecker. I am confronted with my thoughts. Early in the morning, if I have not slept well, I am confronted with the temptation of wanting to fall asleep. I am forced to confront myself. This self-confrontation leads the cult of self-worship and humanistic individualism to an uncomfortable position in their livelihoods. This is why most of the opponents of the Tridentine Mass typically also favor some form of humanistic liberalism. They want no desire to bring their thoughts inward or to meditate upon their own fallenness. The Novus Ordo brings them comfort and they desire not to break from their comfort zone. The Novus Ordo has left the Catholic faith with a dead meditative practice.

I also notice the same when in the Ukrainian Catholic parish I visit on occasion. Sometimes, when they have no cantor, they cannot have a liturgy as is typical, but must do it without chanting. There is again that confrontation with the self. Even as I follow along with the liturgy, my senses are brought inward and I confront the thoughts I have had this week. I bring myself toward conviction. I stand as a condemned man in need of the grace I will be offered by the blood of my Lord. It is the desire for God's grace that ultimately is lost by the noisiness, the hustle and bustle, of the world that we are living in. It is the confrontation with the self, the realization that the self is not to be worshiped but handed over to God and offered as sacrifice, that is what the Novus Ordo cult of self-worship opposes.

On the other hand, the high Mass, which is chanted, invites the soul to enter into the communion of all saints. It shows that the soul is not isolated on an island but enters into the chorus of angels. Salvation is not something that occurs by one's own will power, though it is worked out in fear and trembling at an individual level, this must happen within the communion of those who have handed down tradition. Tradition is not what we have of our own but instead is handed down to us. To annul tradition is to embrace the most radical form of individualism. In the liturgy, we enter the chorus of angels, of saints, of those who came before us in the faith, and enter into the communion with our brethren. I remember writing a note to my godmother back in January wishing to leave the liturgy and asking if I could do so. She wrote a note back saying that if I need to I may but I would miss communion with Christ and with my brethren.

There is on the one hand, silence. A silence that forces one to confront the noise of the mind. That is a low Mass. And on the other hand, there is a form of loudness, not noise, but loudness which calls the mind to communion with God and with angels, saints, and the entirety of the Church. Though I have not been to a Tridentine Mass, I find the livestreams of Tridentine Mass services to be beneficial for exploration and I have found the high Mass to be extremely beautiful. It is everything I know of what the liturgy really ought to be. In the Byzantine rite, we regularly chant our liturgies. It is in the sole exception of the Ukrainian Catholic parish where I've noticed that a non-chanted liturgy has occurred. In many Orthodox churches too, the law requires that all liturgies be chanted. This is because it provides a loudness that elevates and frees the soul from being a prisoner of its own thoughts and recalls the mind to God. God is supremely loud and superbly quiet as the Crazy Church Lady testifies.

In my experience as an Anglican, I have also been to the high Mass where the liturgy is chanted and hymns are exuberantly sung during different intervals. These liturgies are much longer but there is an inherent beauty that is elaborated by the length. Once again, the soul finds itself confronted with its individual thoughts but rather remaining enslaved to them fighting its own battle, the high Mass is where the soul is allowed to elevate itself to the thoughts of the angels and saints. There are more bombastic liturgies and much more mellow liturgies too. The liturgies, in essence, are without mood. The tone reflects only the level and type of angelic joy that one is brought to. I find Russian chant to be most beautiful. The Slavonic tone is far more mellow the Arab tone of my Melkite parish. The Gregorian chant is incredibly beautiful too. But there is benefit from the Arab tone. All of these elevate the soul to untold communal levels of joy. If we liked every single part of the liturgy though, then it would be of our own creation and we would never be saved.

St. Vladimir of Kyiv, Equal to the Apostles

St. Vladimir of Kyiv's story of conversion is well-known to the East. He was the son of Svyatoslav of Rus' though in his father's absence away from the city of Kyiv, was reared by his grandmother. It was his grandmother's faith that would influence later on in life though he was instructed in his father's religion. St. Vladimir, according to the Russian Primary Chronicle, was overcome by his lust for women but would later repent of this and come to the full understanding of the Christian faith in time. It began that a desire came upon him to know the true faith as he would discover different faiths among the Bulgarian Muhammadans and the Greek Orthodox. He desired to know which of these faiths was true and was reminded that his grandmother, who's wisdom surpassed all men, had adopted the Christian faith of the Greeks.

He began to heavily inquire about these different religions asking about the Muhammadan faith and the Christian faith. He obtained far more answers about the Christian faith than the Muhammadan faith. This further made him interested in the Christian faith of his grandmother. The story of St. Vladimir's emissaries is a commonly repeated one. We always tell it when we describe the beauty of Hagia Sophia, built by the Great Emperor Justinian and when we describe the beauty of the Byzantine Liturgy though it is lost that St. Vladimir of Kyiv is actually a Catholic saint too having come before the East-West schism. His inquiries would inspire him to send his emissaries outward in order to inquire about the great faiths of the world and when they came back, they had this to say:

“When we journeyed among the Bulgars, we beheld how they worship in their temple, called a mosque, while they stand ungirt. The Bulgar bows, sits down, looks hither and thither like one possessed, and there is no happiness among them, but instead only sorrow and a dreadful stench. Their religion is not good. Then we went among the Germans, and saw them performing many ceremonies in their temples; but we beheld no glory there. Then we went to Greece, and the Greeks led us to the edifices where they worship their God, and we knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth. For on earth there is no such splendor or such beauty, and we are at a loss how to describe it. We only know that God dwells there among men, and their service is fairer than the ceremonies of other nations. For we cannot forget that beauty. Every man, after tasting something sweet, is afterward unwilling to accept that which is bitter, and therefore we cannot dwell longer here.” (Russian Primary Chronicle)

It was here that they also reminded him that his grandmother had accepted the faith of the Greeks, and repudiated the faith of the Rus'. Certainly, the Greek faith could not have been evil. St. Vladimir decided at this point decided to expand his territory into the Greek domain. He laid siege to the Greek city of Kherson and threatened to take Constantinople unless he was wed to the Princess Anna. The Greeks proposed a deal with Vladimir, still overcome with his earthly passions, that he may wed the Princess if he converted to the Orthodox faith. St. Vladimir, desiring the Princess Anna, accepted the terms and he would be baptized in the Church of St. Basil. From thence, he was instructed into the faith of the Orthodox and would proceed to lead an instruction campaign throughout all of Rus' in order to bring the Orthodox faith to the land.

St. Vladimir would be baptized and eventually, through his rigorous instruction of all of Rus', the Russians would be baptized as well. It was through his grandmother Olga the Great where he would be reminded of that Christian faith as there is no true deathbed conversion. In St. Vladimir we see a man overcome by passions slowly tamed through his desire to know the faith, his thirst for the Truth, and even his own political ambitions aided him in his conversion. St. Vladimir would live the rest of his life as a faithful Orthodox Christian, bringing the Christianity to the entire land of Rus'. This would be the end of Paganism's plight throughout all of Europe as it was beginning to fall under Olaf II of Norway, in Bohemia, it had begun to fall under the reign of Wenceslaus, and had speedily fallen among the Germans almost half a millenium prior to that. Princess Anna reposed in the year 1011 and St. Vladimir would receive his crown of Heavenly glory four years later.

St. Olga of Kyiv, Convert and Queen

It was during his father Oleg's conflicts with the Eastern Roman Empire that Igor was presented with Olga whom he took to wed. Oleg rounded up groups of Varangians, Slavs, Chuds, Krivichians, Merians, Polyanians, Severians, Drevlians, Radimichians, Croats, Dulebians, and Tivercians. All of these, the Byzantines collectively reffered to as the "Great Scythians". At this point in time, in the early 10th century, Christianity had not come to Rus'. Rus' found itself under Pagan rulership and with Pagan allies fighting against the Christian Empire of the East. Olga would become central in changing the course of history for the Russians.

When the Roman Emperors Leo and Alexander made peace with Oleg, they made an oath kissing their crosses but Oleg swore by his weapons making an oath to the god Perun and by Volos, the god of cattle. But finally, the Byzantines experienced a peace with Rus'. While Oleg would reign in peace with the Emperor Leo and the other nations throughout his life, his son Igor would earn the ire of the Drevlians. In the year of 914, Igor attacked the Drevlians, conquered them, and imposed higher tributes on them than before when they were aligned with Oleg. When Romanus was made the Emperor of the Greeks, the Pechengs came through Tsar'grad and it was in this scenario that the Bulgarians and their allies, the Pechengs, would begin to come to blows with the Greeks. This political turmoil led to peace between Rus' and Constantinople being broken off subsequently.

This conflict became similar to the alliances made by his father. Igor attacked the Byzantines once more in 944 with the Varangians, the Russes, the Slavs, the Polyanians, the Krivichians, the Tivercians, and the Pechengs. Once more, in 945, another effort was made to establish peace between the King Igor and the Emperors Romanus and Constantine. In establishing peace with the Greeks once again, Igor's mind would return to the Drevlians yet again and he pursued a still larger tribute. He would collect the tribute even if it meant violence. The Drevlians heard he would come to them and so they discussed that they should kill him so that he does not kill them first. Igor came to the Drevlians and the Drevlians slew him. They sent word to Olga who was in Kyiv that she should marry their prince Mal as they had killed Igor. But Olga wasn't about to fall for a trap.

Olga reasoned that if they truly wanted her, the Drevlians should send their top-most dignities to her immediately. They agreed. She then insisted they bathe before seeing her and as they were in the bathhouse, she ordered her soldiers to heat it, lock it, and then set it on fire. The men perished. She then sent note to the Drevlians: "I am now coming to you, so prepare great quantities of mead in the city where you killed my husband, that I may weep over his grave and hold a funeral feast for him." (Primary Chronicle) When Olga came to the Drevlians, she insisted to them that she had no desire to impose a tribute as her husband had. She told the truth in all of her deception to the Drevlians for the Drevlians, being the wicked Pagans they were, had used this St. Olga as his minister of divine retribution on these Scythians and they were blinded to what was behind Olga's intentions. She requested they give her three pigeons and three sparrows. She took the pigeons and sparrows to her soldiers and ordered them to tie a piece of sulphur bound with cloth to each of the pigeons and sparrows. Then she ordered they be released. They returned to their nests in their homes during the night and the Drevlians tasted the fires of Hell for their barbarous attitudes toward the Greeks and for their treachorous murder of Igor of Kyiv.

"The people fled from the city, and Olga ordered her soldiers to catch them. Thus she took the city and burned it, and captured the elders of the city. Some of the other captives she killed, while she gave others as slaves to her followers. The remnant she left to pay (60) tribute." (Primary Chronicle)

Olga would go to Greece and there would meet the Emperor Constantine. The Emperor was greatly impressed with her intellect and possibly even desired her for a wife for it is stated in the Primary Chronicle that he thought it would be fitting for her to reign with him. It was in Greece that Olga formally embraced Christianity but only on the condition that the Emperor Constantine baptize her which he did with the help of the Patriarch. According to the same Primary Chronicle,

"When Olga was enlightened, she rejoiced in soul and body. The Patriarch, who instructed her in the faith, said to her, “Blessed art thou among the women of Rus’, for thou hast loved the light, and quit the darkness. The sons of Rus’ shall bless thee to the last generation of thy descendants.” He taught her the doctrine of the Church, and instructed her in prayer and fasting, in almsgiving, and in the mainte¬ nance of chastity. She bowed her head, and like a sponge absorbing water, she eagerly drank in his teachings. The Princess bowed before the Patriarch, saying, “Through thy prayers, Holy Father, may I be preserved from the crafts and assaults of the devil!” At her baptism she was christened Helena, after the ancient Empress, mother of Con¬ stantine the Great. The Patriarch then blessed her and dismissed her."

It was after her baptism that the Emperor Constantine revealed that he wished her to become his wife. But St. Olga pointed out to him that at her baptism, the Emperor had called her his daughter and pointed out that it is unlawful for such a marriage to occur in the Christian religion for St. Olga was now his goddaughter. The Emperor replied, "Olga, you have outwitted me!" Olga, upon returning home, would urge her son to be baptized and convert to the Christian religion and tried to show to him the numerous blessings that would come from knowing the one true God but her son, Svyatoslav refused. It would not be until St. Vladimir the Great, her grandson, that Rus' would finally have a Christian sovereign.

Divine providence was yet at play again for as God had used the then Pagan Olga to deliver up his vengeance against the barbarous activities of the Pagan Drevlians, so now also he used Svyatoslav's slackness toward the homeland to turn the people of Rus' to favor St. Olga as their intercessor. Indeed, she offered prayers for them from Kyiv and interceded on their behalf while with her grandsons, Yaropolk, Oleg, and Vladimir. This, even as the Pechengs turned against the Russians and began to surround the city of Kyiv. The people of Rus' complained about their regnant, favoring the Queen regent instead.

"Oh Prince, you visit and frequent foreign lands. But while you neglect your own coun¬ try, the Pechenegs have all but taken us captive, along with your mother and your children as well. Unless you return to protect us, they will attack us again, if you have no pity on your native land, on your mother in her old age, and on your children." (Primary Chronicle)

Olga ordered no funeral feast to be carried out for her as she had a priest to provide her Christian burial. Svyatoslav was called back to care for his mother one last time. In spite of their religious differences, St. Olga loved her son nevertheless. She became the first of the Russians to enter into the glorious Kingdom of Heaven. She would not be the last. Due to the absence of their father during the times he visited foreign lands, St. Vladimir became fond of the faith of his grandmother. He would eventually adopt the Christian religion for her sake. St. Olga continues to intercede for the Russians and has patronage over all converts. Living in a family of heathens and heretics myself, I find in St. Olga a patron who shares my sufferings. But like St. Olga, I have powerful intercessors helping me. For her, it was a Roman Emperor. For me, it is the Crazy Church Lady. St. Olga, pray for me, a convert!

St. Euphrosyne, Princess of Moscow

Russia was going through a turbulent time during the reign of Prince Dmitry Donskoi. Dmitry was the son of Ivan I and he would be elevated to the title of Grand Prince upon the repose of his father at age nine. During his reign, Russia was overcome with internal quarrels and this further complicated its struggles against the Tatar and Mongol hordes that sought to dominate and control the country. Dmitry believed that the best way to combat and repel the resistant hordes was to centralize Russia underneath the authority of Moscow, ending the internal quarrels and uniting the Russians against the common Tatar and Mongol enemy. He would marry Eudoxia in the year 1367 and this greatly assisted him as she was known for her piety and virtue. (Thornton, Pious Kings and Right-Believing Queens, 128-129)

Eudoxia would support Dmitry throughout his reign with her prayers which she constantly offered for him and his armies. In his many campaigns against the Tatars, Dmitry would suffer injuries that he would ultimately succumb to. He reposed in the year 1389. Widowed, Eudoxia would reign as regent for her two sons until they were old enough. It was during this time she took upon herself many penances but she kept these penances concealed from the people. Even her two sons did not know the trials she had decided to take upon herself. According to St. Nikolai Velimirovich, she would wear the most fanciful clothes on the outside but she had wrapped herself in chains underneath the garments. On the outside, she looked very much a Grand Princess but underneath, she was withered and beaten. The people began to suspect her of all sorts of whoredoms. Her sons inquired this about her which is when she revealed to them the chains she had wrapped herself in underneath her clothes and her greatly withered body. Her sons began to understand the great penances she had taken upon herself (Prologue of Ohrid, May 17).

She had been a donor to the monasteries throughout her husband's reign and it was in her regency for her young sons that she founded the Convent of the Ascension. Being forewarned of her own death, she eventually took monastic vows and changed her name to Euphrosyne. She reposed in the year 1407 as a nun in the Convent that she had founded, entering into eternal glory on July 7. She is commemorated on May 17 as well.

There is also a story of a blind man who had told St. Euphrosyne that she would give him back his sight. The saint did not understand what the blind man was saying and brushed him with her cloak. The blind man pressed the edge of the garments to his eyes and his sight instantly returned. (Pious Kings and Right-Believing Queens, 182-183) St. Euphrosyne's life was lived in giving, piety, and is a role-model wife for how Christian women ought to support their husbands in their struggles. She reminds me of my own godmother in a sense who is always praying for me, offering me prayers when I go through difficult times. St. Euphrosyne, pray for our rebellious world!

Are unvaccinated Catholics obligated to follow the mask mandates?

The short answer is "no". The long answer goes into the question of determining whether the current mandates are even properly laws at this point. St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine makes the following point:

"Unjust laws are not properly called laws, as Augustine teaches. Moreover, four conditions are required for a law to be just. 1) On the side of the end, that it is ordained for the common good; for as a king differs from a tyrant, in that the former seeks the common advantage, while the latter seeks his own, so also a just law differs from a tyrannical one. 2) One the side of the agent, that it should be from having authority, for no one can impose a law except upon a subject. 3) On the side of the matter, that it should not forbid virtue, nor command a vice. 4) On the side of form, that a law should be clearly promulgated and constituted in a measure and order due to it, so that a law would preserve that proportion in the distribution of honors and imposition of burdens which subjects have in rank toward the common good." (On the Roman Pontiff, Bk. IV, Ch. XV)

So we should investigate whether a particular law or mandate from an earthly prince follows this criteria before we subjugate ourselves to it. The recent church closures are obviously an infraction of a just law for they forbid the virtue of receiving the benefit of the sacraments. Catholics are not obligated to follow such laws. Therefore, Catholics everywhere ought to be seeking and pressuring their governments to open the churches or face worldwide counter-revolution. But the recent mask mandates that apply only to unvaccinated individuals have left some people wondering whether these are just laws or fraudulent laws. Are unvaccinated people walking around without masks "cheaters" who are using situational advantage to remove their masks. As stated, the short answer is a definitive "no". Under scrutiny, the current laws have actually created severe ethical and moral dilemmas to begin with which has benefited one side over the other. This of course would be sufficient to render the law inherently unjust. Either the law applies to all or it applies to none. But effectively, what these mandates have done is recreated the leper colonies of old where the unvaccinated are pushed aside and treated as lepers. This is doing nothing more but isolating the unvaccinated and the voiding them of their humanity. Unlike the leper colonies of old though, no one cares enough to visit the unvaccinated.

Underneath argument 1, the first question should be addressed whether this is for the common good. It's very difficult to argue in favor of this because no one can actually see a virus. In fact, Fauci's leaked e-mails show that he holds a very low confidence in masks. He even stated how masks would only serve a symbolic gesture. The "common good" that it's supposed to be used for is to "prevent the spread of COVID-19". That sounds good and all but we see the full revolutionary ideology at play here. It is the idea that "I am God and I control the situation!" The fact of the matter, is that it cannot be for the common good because we are not in control of viruses. Further, masks have been shown to have very unhealthy risks for children. What this entails is that masks are not at all beneficial for the common good. If they prevent the spread of COVID-19 at all, they do more harm than good. Since health is holistic, being concerned for only the spread of one disease is not a justifiable excuse for establishing the common good. The common good is something that all objectively understand to be good and it cannot be established that preventing the spread of a viral infection is a greater good than the other health risks that must be taken in concordance with the ascetical lack of not being able to see another person's face in order to establish a healthy relationship with the other. Thus, masks are not inherently critical to the common good. They fail to meet criteria 1. Even further, masks can only ever serve the benefit of those who are fearful of the spread of COVID-19. The tyrant seeks his own good and the tyrant makes tyrannical laws. If the law only seeks the good of those who are fearful of COVID-19 and ignores the good of others, then the law is inherently tyrannical and thus, unjust.

Argument 2 makes the point that the law must be in a relational context of authority to subject. The problem is that in a democracy, there are always ideological dissidents of the authority who refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the one claiming authority. The one claiming authority must rely on the legitimacy he derives from the people. The Biden administration, particularly, insists that its authority is derived from the people. But which people? I didn't vote for the Biden administration. If you voted for Jo Jorgensen, did you vote for Biden? So how could Biden derive his authority from you? If democracy is about the consent of the governed, how does a mere majority make consent? Thus, the context of the authority and subject relationship is broken. There is no objective way to establish legitimacy and if the authority of the government ultimately derives from the people, then by pointing out that you are among the people and did not give consent, you cannot be placed as a subject. Of course, what other things mark legitimate authority? Authority requires legitimacy. For instance, does a governor who insists that infants be left to die have the capability to be entrusted with his state's health policies? Or does such a person lose authority due to a damaged capacity to reason? This may be seen as "begging the question" but the reality is that authority-subject relationship in a democracy itself begs the question!

On matter 3, we have a very serious issue on our hands. The mRNA vaccines out there for one, alter the genetic code. Of course, this is a very serious violation of moral theology as it alters the created order of God by altering the human body itself. A just law must order virtue but this law orders the alteration of the human genome itself. Because of this, the mRNA vaccine can never be said to be ethical. Ethics is not something the modern Leviathan cares for though. By commanding a vaccine that alters the genetic code be taken before you are allowed to remove the mask is to enforce one to violate his moral conscientiousness before being able to be treated like a valued human being. But a just law would order that one be treated like a valued human being regardless. One does not need a genetically altering vaccine in order to be treated as a valued human being. Regardless of what the Leviathan says, we can all be treated like valued human beings without having to subvert our moral conscientiousness. Thus, because the law places ethical violations before valued treatment, Catholics cannot be compelled to be subject to this law. The law is unjust and immoral. Further, many of these vaccines are made using the tissue of cloned aborted fetus cells. The Holy Emperor Constantine was told by a Pagan priest to bathe himself in the blood of children in order to be cured of his leprosy once. When the Emperor went to a Catholic priest, the priest forbade him to do this, baptized him, and this cleansed him from his leprosy. If the Holy Emperor Constantine is an example, we ought to avoid injecting ourselves with vaccines that use fetal cell tissue. But this does not mean we need to sit around and wait before we are able to be treated like valued human beings again. We can therefore remove our masks.

Under argument 4, we can clearly see the law weighs undue burdens upon the unvaccinated forcing them to subvert their moral conscience and, further, has great negative health risks for younger people. Because it imposes undue burdens and creates class groups, the law cannot be reasonably considered a law. It is inherently immoral. One can flippantly state, "must be nice to be in an age group where you won't be strongly harmed by COVID-19" all they want. The fact of the matter is that such a person is actually using "law" in order to benefit themselves. The issues are in fact difficult to navigate but none of the fear of COVID-19 can or should have been ever used to justify lockdowns or universal mask mandates. Further, to place the burden to make decisions regarding morality and health risks on an entire population before they can obtain basic freedoms that a particular class of people behold and to forever shame them is not only egregiously immoral but also unduly tyrannical. When a portion of the population seeks to control another portion of the population, that is an "us vs. them" mentality that is bred into the individual. That is a collectivist mentality that is bred into the individual. You might say that "the government has ordered it! How could this be wrong?" But think of what else governments have ordered. From the Communist State of Stalinist Russia to Hitler's slaughter of the Jews to Roosevelt's imprisonment of Asians to the segregation of colored people from whites. All of these things have been ordered by governments. And the government has been wrong to order these things. In fact, the State, as of this last century, has created a track record of itself being routinely wrong. You may think of these people as "cheaters". Don't do so. They are protesting an inherently unjust law. If you can argue against this, please do so.