31 October 2024

Irish Hate Crime Bill Passed, Despite Calls for Pause in Legislation

"New law gives 72 genders their own legal status." Nouns have gender, not humans! Sounds like the TDs desperately need a basic biology course.


By TEC News

New law gives 72 genders their own legal status.

The Criminal Justice (Hate Offences) Act was signed into law by Irish President Michael D. Higgins on October 29. This follows the Irish parliament, the Dáil, passing the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill by a majority of 78 to 52 votes.

Among five bills rushed through the Dáil in under six hours on the evening of October 23—a process that normally takes several weeks—the contentious legislation defines gender as

the gender of a person or the gender which a person expresses as the person’s preferred gender or with which the person identifies and includes transgender and a gender other than those of male and female.

As the bill was debated in the Seanad (Senate/upper house), populist senator Sharon Keogan read out the 72 genders which have now gained legal standing, needing 25 minutes to complete the jargon-heavy list.

The passage of the bill into law follows Justice Minister Helen McEntee’s confirmation last month that she was not proceeding with plans to introduce new hate speech laws, but would proceed with the hate crime element of the legislation.

McEntee said she wanted to “remove the incitement to violence or hatred provisions entirely from this bill so that we can progress this important element of legislation and send a very clear message that hatred and violence are not tolerated in our society,” adding,

I have said very publicly that I believe we need to update our 1989 Acts. I absolutely believe this needs to be next on our agenda.

Speaking earlier, Ms McEntee said that she “absolutely believes” that the Dáil will in the future consider introducing hate speech laws.

“I believe that instead of not enacting any element of [the bill], I wanted to ensure that hate crime, for the first time, was put on statute. We’re the first country across Europe to have it, and I absolutely believe that we need to have it,” Ms McEntee said.

A number of opposition politicians expressed strong objection to the revised Bill, including the Rural Independent Group, who voted against the legislation. Mattie McGrath said that the legislation should be “taken back.”

“Why the rush? Rushed legislation is often, nearly always, bad legislation,” he said, stating that the law was about “trying to intimidate ordinary citizens from having their voice heard. You don’t like the voice of the people,” McGrath told the justice minister:

Your government has been the most anti-ordinary people that I’ve ever seen here in my term of four governments. I don’t know why you’ve such a dislike for them. The games you’re playing with them and the legislation you’re passing is not helping the people. 

“This is bad legislation which has been rushed through in the dying days of a bad government,” Sinn Féin’s Deputy Matt Carthy said, adding that “a proper consensus” should have been reached in the House, including “an actual definition of hate“:

The current definition of hate [in the Bill] is defined as hatred. It’s circular, and I don’t believe it’s an acceptable way of doing legislation.

Carthy said the hate crime bill is “trying to introduce a new definition of gender, despite there being no consensus as to what that means,” pointing out that the Bill defines gender as including transgender, and a “gender other than male or female.”

“Minister, most people do not understand what that means precisely,” he said.

Independent Deputy Danny Healy-Rae said, “We’ve been a democratic State for the last 100 years. What was wrong with it? Why are we trying to change it? Why are we trying to shut people up? Why are we trying to deny them the right to talk?”

Ireland’s Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989 addresses inciting hatred against groups of people, but not incitement to hatred against individuals, which led the European Union to criticise Ireland—like Bulgaria and Estonia—for not having laws on crimes aggravated by hatred.

Berlin Braces for Halloween Chaos Amid Explosives Incident & Fire Evacuation

Well, Hallowe'en does have Christian roots, so I can understand the terror incident, but I wonder if the 'young people engaging in violence are Germans.

From The European Conservative

By Nick Hallett

Police have increased security measures across the city.

In a suspected terrorist incident at Neukölln S-Bahn station, federal police attempted to question a man on Wednesday afternoon, but he fled, leaving behind a bag containing what appeared to be an explosive device. Nius reports that the bag held a “grayish substance” believed to be TATP, or “Mother of Satan,” a highly unstable explosive linked to prior attacks in Europe. The police detonated the bag safely in a nearby park, though the suspect remains at large.

In a separate incident, Berlin emergency services were called to a major fire at the Amrit Indian restaurant in Berlin-Mitte early Thursday morning. Bild reports that the fire spread quickly from the ground-floor restaurant through ventilation ducts to apartments above, forcing a full evacuation. 

Over 113 firefighters tackled the flames, which were finally extinguished around 10 a.m. Four residents sustained minor injuries, while ten others were treated for smoke inhalation. The fire department declared the scene a “mass casualty incident” and took further steps to prevent any lingering embers from reigniting the blaze.

The incidents come as Berlin police prepare for possible disturbances on Halloween night, following a pattern of escalating pranks and vandalism in recent years. Die Welt reports that Halloween has seen increasing incidents of violence, particularly in districts like Neukölln, Gesundbrunnen, and Graefekiez, where young people threw firecrackers, eggs, and bottles at police last year. Authorities in Berlin, as well as in North Rhine-Westphalia, are taking precautions, with plans to shut down public transport in the city of Duisburg if necessary.

According to Die Welt, the “sometimes tense situation at gatherings in the context of the Gaza war also plays a role in assessing the situation. According to the police, there are currently no concrete indications of ‘an increased risk.’ However, the situation is being continuously monitored.”

While there are no specific threats tied to Halloween events, police presence will be significant, focusing on potential hotspots across the city. Officers from various states are prepared to support Berlin law enforcement as needed, aiming to prevent any escalation of disturbances or violence.

North Rhine-Westphalia interior minister Herbert Reul urged people to celebrate Halloween peacefully. “Go out, dress up, be a witch, a mummy or a ghost. Go around the houses with your children, but remember: even pranks have limits.”

1st Vespers of All Saints Day

From the Canons Regular of the New Jerusalem. You may follow the Office at Divinum Officium.

Rosary & Benediction

From SSPX ~ ANZ District. You may follow the Order of Benediction here.

The Holy Rosary

Thursday, the Joyful Mysteries, in Latin with Cardinal Burke.

The Medieval Knight


The path to knighthood started at the age of 7. A boy born of nobility was sent to a castle as a page and at age 14 he became a squire. As a squire he could go into battle as an assistant to a knight, and at age 21 they could become a full knight themselves.

Why is Faith Important?

With Wojciech Giertych, OP, STL, STD, Papal Theologian & Professor of Moral Theology, Angelicum.


How does the virtue of faith make a difference to the life of a Christian? In this opening lecture of our Online Virtue Series, Theologian of the Papal Household and beloved Angelicum professor Fr. Wojciech Giertych, OP shows how faith is the spark that ignites the life of virtue. Drawing on the wisdom and clarity of the Thomistic tradition, Fr. Giertych explains where faith comes from, what it means to have living faith, and its power in the moral life and the life of prayer.

Hallowe'en Was Originally a Day of Fasting

The Eves of many major Feasts were days of fasting until the weakness of modern man made it too "difficult". By the early 20th century only four were left in the US, the vigils of Christmas, Pentecost, the Assumption, and All Saints.

From Aleteia

By Philip Kosloski

On All Hallows' Eve, Catholics were asked to follow the Church's tradition of observing a fast day before a major feast.

For many children in the United States, Halloween is their favorite holiday of the year. This is primarily the case because of all the candy children get to feast on after going trick-or-treating.

Interestingly, while this secular holiday has become associated with feasting on candy, it was originally a day of fasting in the Catholic Church.

November 1 is All Saints Day in the Catholic Church, and is usually a holy day of obligation. (There is no obligation this year for Catholics in the US, as it falls on a Monday.) All Saints Day is a solemnity, one of the highest ranked feasts in the Church, a day marked with joy and celebration.

For many centuries the Church was accustomed to observe the eve or vigil of a major feast day with a special fast. It followed the ancient saying that you should "fast before you feast."

The Catholic Encyclopedia explains a bit of the history behind this tradition.

In the first ages, during the night before every feast, a vigil was kept. In the evening the faithful assembled in the place or church where the feast was to be celebrated and prepared themselves by prayers, readings from Holy Writ (now the Offices of Vespers and Matins), and sometimes also by hearing a sermon ... In place of nocturnal observances, the bishops introduced for the laity a fast on the day before the feast ... The Synod of Seligenstadt (1022) mentions vigils on the eves of Christmas, Epiphany, the feast of the Apostles, the Assumption of Mary, St. Laurence, and All Saints.

The day prior to All Saints (October 31) was observed as a day of fasting for many centuries, all the way through the first half of the 20th century, as is mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia of that era. "In the United States only four of theses vigils are fast days: the vigils of Christmas, Pentecost, the Assumption, and All Saints."

It may seem strange to modern ears that Halloween was a day of fasting, but Christians in previous centuries saw this day as a day to prepare their hearts for the celebration of All Saints.

The Enraged Demons Are Attacking Churches Across America

Wicked Bishop Viciously Tries to Strip Nuns of Their Dignity and Fails Spectacularly

Feasts of Early November

From My Book of the Church's Year by Enid M. Chadwick; Forward by Peter Kwasniwesi, PhD.



The Antichrist is No Longer Restrained

"Amplified by the words and actions of Pope Francis, the crisis within the Church in recent decades represents, according to many authors from conservative and traditional Catholic circles, an unprecedented phenomenon in history."

From One Peter Five

By Robert Lazu Kmita, PhD



What – or Who – Withholds the Revelation of the Antichrist?

Amplified by the words and actions of Pope Francis, the crisis within the Church in recent decades represents, according to many authors from conservative and traditional Catholic circles, an unprecedented phenomenon in history. Even Pope John Paul II, who unfortunately embodies certain well-known neo-modernist tendencies, was forced to acknowledge in his exhortation Ecclesia in Europa (2003) that we are facing a so-called “silent apostasy” on the part of people who live as if God does not exist (art. 9). It is worth noting that this can only refer to baptized individuals, for only someone who knows Christian doctrine can apostatize, either by rejecting it entirely on a theoretical level or by denying it through a “worldly” way of life.

In times of crisis, as the young Joseph Ratzinger affirmed in the preface to his important monograph Theology of History in Saint Bonaventure (Chicago, IL: Franciscan Herald Press, 1971), the faithful not only begin to diligently read the ancient biblical prophecies but also seek the keys to understanding them. Today, we frequently encounter manifestations of this growing interest in deciphering the signs of the times and predicting the end of the world.

For example, in a very brief but intense article published on the Rorate Caeli blog, highly significantly titled “Why is the Traditional Latin Mass So Hated?,” the author, writing under the pseudonym “Father Enda,” directly refers to one of the most famous texts about the Antichrist—from the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians by Saint Paul the Apostle. Marked by the attempt of a significant portion of the Church hierarchy to completely ban the traditional Roman Catholic Mass, he asserts with a certain radicalism the following:

The Traditional Latin Mass is the instrument of predilection chosen by God to restrain the reign of Antichrist.

Although rare, this interpretation, which postulates that what restrains the manifestation is the abundance of graces poured out upon the world through the Holy Mass, represents a more subtle understanding of Paul’s text. Beyond a possible preference for the spiritual hermeneutics of sacred texts, reflection on the words of the great Apostle to the Gentiles is absolutely necessary.

Saint Peter’s Warning

Before any discussion of the prophecies of Holy Scripture, a serious warning is absolutely necessary. The reason is simple: prophecies are in fashion. Many of us Christians, as well as some of our non-religious contemporaries, perceive in the changes taking place in today’s world dangers unlike any seen before in history. The world is shaking, and political changes and mass migration are transforming our society into one in which we feel increasingly less secure. Inevitably, discussions about apocalyptic texts—whether Christian or non-Christian—have multiplied considerably.

Regarding the warning about the obscurity of Biblical prophecies, it is an ancient one. As we will see, even the Apostle Paul urged the Christians of his time to exercise great caution in any discussion about the end of history and the Second Coming of Christ. To offer solid protection against apocalypticism and reckless interpretations, the Council of Trent, in its fourth session, gave us a simple and clear teaching:

Ecclesiae ergo est judicare de vero sensu et interpretatione S. Scripturae (“It is therefore for the Church to judge about the true sense and interpretation of Holy Scripture”).

Obviously, since the prophecies of the Judeo-Christian Tradition all stem from the pages of Holy Scripture, the above axiom applies to them as well. Consequently, everything I will present regarding one of the most mysterious prophetic Biblical passages represents a mere opinion, a personal one, just like any discussion that might arise from this article.

This warning also has a specific dimension, referring to the difficulty of understanding the texts of the Apostle Paul, “in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction” (II Peter 3:16).

The danger of misinterpretation is boldly emphasized. Errors in such matters can have very serious consequences, even endangering one’s own salvation. If we remember that most heresies resulted from or were justified by erroneous interpretations of the Bible, we immediately understand why the virtue of prudence is absolutely necessary. Moreover, beyond the general note regarding the difficulty of understanding Holy Scripture, the Apostle Peter also highlights the intrinsic difficulty of certain texts of the Apostle Paul, which sometimes require a depth of theological knowledge that exceeds the ordinary measure of most Christians. Furthermore, Saint Augustine always emphasized that precise knowledge of the signs of the end of universal history—among which the manifestation of the Antichrist is one of the most prominent—would contradict the words of Christ the Savior, who said, “that day and hour no one knows, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone” (Matthew 24:36).

Bearing these warnings in mind, we can now turn our attention to the famous text from II Thessalonians.

The Mysterious Words of Saint Paul

From the context of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, it appears that the members of that community were troubled by the imminence of the end of the world. The Apostle had to calm them down:

And we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our gathering together unto him: That you be not easily moved from your sense, nor be terrified, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by epistle, as sent from us, as if the day of the Lord were at hand (II Thessalonians 2:1-2).

The fact that such worries existed during the apostolic era itself shows that the Church’s situation in the world has always made baptized individuals concerned about the possible second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Over the centuries, there have been many Church Fathers and Doctors who leaned toward the belief that the end of the world was imminent. But, as Saint Robert Bellarmine pointed out, such reactions can be regarded more as mere suspicions. Aware of the danger posed by “apocalypticist” attitudes, Saint Paul reacted wisely, offering a framework for the whole discussion. Here are his words:

Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God. Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way (II Thessalonians 2:3-7).

It is clear that the Apostle had already spoken to the Thessalonians about the mystery of evil and the end of history, and now he is trying to remind them of his teachings. From this, it follows that the second coming of the Savior will be preceded by the manifestation of the one called “the man of sin.” For us, the readers, this is the only obvious thing. The rest of the text remains shrouded in mystery. And that is because we were not among those listeners to whom the Apostle had already revealed the mystery of the supreme incarnation of evil in history. Therefore, we do not know who or what “he who now holdeth” the full manifestation of iniquity might be: τὸ κατέχον (tò katéchon).

The Douay-Rheims translation contains an inaccuracy that must be mentioned. It refers to the use of the noun “revolt” instead of the much clearer term “apostasy.” Of course, revolt can be seen as the fundamental attitude of those who apostatize. That is why I referred to it as an imprecision, not a translation error. However, in the Greek text of Saint Paul’s epistle, the term is unequivocal: ἡ ἀποστασία (hē apostasia), translated by Saint Jerome in the Vulgate as discessio.

Why is this term important? Because it indicates that the event which will prepare the manifestation of the Antichrist is related to a large number of Catholics abandoning the orthodox faith. For, as I already mentioned when citing the exhortation Ecclesia in Europa, only someone who knows this faith can apostatize. Why did the translators from the English College in Douai choose this version instead of saying—like the original text—“apostasy”? Because, often, the most difficult thing to accept is that a large-scale apostasy of Christians might be permitted by God. The most frequent issue I have encountered among Conservative Catholics who refuse to recognize the seriousness of the current situation is related precisely to this difficulty.

The Mystery of Evil

Let us now return to our essential question: the nature of that obstacle, that reality—or person—that prevents the manifestation of the Antichrist. Here, I will emphasize that the foundation of any substantial discussion on this matter is tied to the fact that the noun used in the original Greek text is articulated differently. Thus, in verse 6, we find a neutral form of the word, κατέχον (katechōn), indicated by the article used: “τὸ” (tò). Immediately afterward, in verse 9, the masculine version of the same noun is used, indicated by the article “ὁ” (ho).

Why is this differentiation between the neutral and masculine genders of the same noun important? Because while the former could suggest something like the spiritual barrier referenced in the article mentioned earlier, where the author radically claimed that the Holy Mass is “the instrument of predilection chosen by God to restrain the reign of the Antichrist,” the masculine form seems to point to a person who is preventing the manifestation of the Antichrist. This latter interpretation was followed by the Italian thinker Giorgio Agamben, who suggested that Pope Benedict XVI was the one who impeded the revelation of the Antichrist—an interpretation to which I will return in another article.

At the same time, however, the alternation between the two forms of katechōn—the first, neutral, the second, masculine—may also suggest another interpretation, much closer to the exegesis of the Church Fathers. Thus, it could refer to an institution—the Roman Empire or the Christian Church itself—which also has a human representative of authority to which it is indissolubly linked: the Emperor or the Pope. Therefore, on the one hand, the neutral form might indicate the entity—the Empire or the Church—that restrains the manifestation of the Antichrist, while the masculine form might indicate the person—the Emperor or the Pope—who embodies the authority of the mentioned entity. This interpretation has been the most widespread throughout the history of traditional Christian theology.

For example, Saint John Chrysostom directly addresses the question of the nature of this katechōn, answering it decisively:

What then is it that holds back, that is, that hinders the revealing of the Antichrist? Some indeed say the grace of the Spirit, but others the Roman Empire. I agree with the latter position. Why? Because if Paul meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely but plainly, that even now the grace of the Spirit, that is the gifts, hold back the Antichrist.

In the same vein, one could also respond to the anonymous author from Rorate Caeli who considers the Holy Mass to be the obstacle preventing the Antichrist. If this were the case, the Apostle would have stated it explicitly, without any problem. Moreover, it would have been accompanied by serious warnings regarding the alteration or replacement of the Traditional Mass. Therefore, the liturgy is not what restrains the manifestation of the Antichrist. Furthermore, Biblical revelation excludes this, as in the Book of Daniel, we are told that the Antichrist himself will prohibit the worship of God—a fact which presupposes that he (the Antichrist) is already manifest.

Although some authors, such as Severian of Gabala, claim that the mysterious katechōn is the Holy Spirit (or possibly divine grace that prevents the full manifestation of evil), the interpretation of Saint John Chrysostom is the dominant one. From Tertullian to Saints Robert Bellarmine and Alphonsus Liguori, followed by the famous Jesuit commentator Cornelius a Lapide and Bishop Richard Challoner, this interpretation is unanimous: the one who restrains the manifestation of the Antichrist is the Roman Empire. We should not forget that the Empire was Christianized and defended through the providential interventions of legendary historical figures like the Eastern Emperors Constantine and Theodosius, and in the West by Charlemagne and Otto the Great.

Very concretely, Christianization meant the synthesis of Roman law, which saved the Apostle Paul from the unleashed fury of the zealots, and the Gospel. This law of divine right, guaranteed by the glorious Catholic Kings and Emperors, has been systematically excluded from the life of modern states—first through the Protestant Reformation, and later through the wave of revolutions over the last two centuries. The entire legal system inspired by Latin rigor (a rigor maintained even through language) and the Gospel spread by the Roman Catholic Church, along with canon law, has been both theoretically and practically almost completely eliminated.

Law has been replaced by lawlessness—as we can see, for example, in the “legal” support of such extremely grave sins as abortion and euthanasia. Nothing and no one opposes this situation because the Roman Empire—the secular form of the Social Kingdom of Christ the Redeemer—has been made desolate, and its representatives, the Catholic kings and popes, no longer have any real influence over the course of politics and laws in modern states. Has the katechōn been completely removed? Personally, I think so.

Photo Credit: Marcelo Santos on Unsplash 

Good News? Synodal Final Document Proposes “Pentarchy 2.0”

Mr Grigorieff looks at the Synod Final Document through the eyes of a Byzantine Russian Catholic. He is preparing for the Russian Catholic Priesthood.


By Maxim Grigorieff, MA

The Synod on Synodality has just concluded in Rome. As if to end the restless period with a final surprise, it was hours before the Final Document was published when Pope Francis announced that he would not publish any teaching document of his own that would be based on the Synodal suggestions, as was customary in the past even during this pontificate. Rather, the Pope elevated the Final Document to the level of ordinary teaching of the Catholic Church without any further consideration, correction or personal sealing (according to his recent Episcopalis communio).[1] While indeed, nothing should come as a surprise if it is done by the Surprising Pope himself, one cannot deny the move was unprecedented in the history of the Church.

Although translations into various languages are still being prepared in Rome, I looked at the Italian original text in search of references to the Eastern Catholic Churches and will briefly share what I found comparing it with my initial expectations that were, to say the least, quite moderate. Why was I so sceptical? I had my reasons from my view watching what was going on in two Romes, the First and the Third alike.

Due to all the fuss that was being made about the Synod by the Alphabet ideologues (the fuss that has been stirred up by Pope Fransis hosting transgenders in Rome, promoting (now) Cardinal Timothy Radcliffe and (still) Father James Martin SJ on the very stage of the Synod), I was fully convinced that the whole set of Eastern topics would be nothing more than another trope in the modern Leftist agenda that is predicated on the Oppressor vs Oppressed dichotomy (which certainly had to serve the interests of the radicals within the Church). In other words, as an Eastern Catholic, I was preparing to be dressed up like Amazon indigenous people in order to play their role in some bigger game. I was looking forward to some unintentional good words, questionable intentions and veiled suggestions on behalf of some very prominent European bishops and Western theologians who do not really care for me and my Eastern Catholic Church. But first let me make an important digression.

Synodality in Moscow

Having been involved in the Synodal affairs here at home, I observed many things. The Final report on the preparation process for the Synod of Bishops in the Archdiocese of the Mother of God in Moscow[2] did not even mention Eastern Catholics directly at all, despite the Easterns constituting a quarter of the total number of the seminarians back at the time. At this time, even in Russia where it is native and normative on the cultural scale, the Byzantine rite is badly marginalised within the Catholic minority. People don’t usually want to speak about it, but the reasons are clear: according to the mind of the Holy See for centuries in taking care to preserve the ancient eastern Catholic rites (a sentiment repeated again at Vatican II and by Pope St. John Paul II), canon law automatically makes any convert to Catholicism a Catholic according to the rite of his baptism. In other words, if a ‘native’ and ‘practising’ Russian Orthodox Christian becomes Catholic (as I did), he automatically becomes a Russian Catholic of the Byzantine rite. But so do all those people who were baptised in the Orthodox Church but either never practised it, ‘having met Christ,’ as they say, in the Latin Church (which is fine), or consciously detest and reject the Byzantine rite, considering it defective (which is a doctrinal problem). Rome understands that there are peculiarities to be taken into account, that is why one can ask the Holy See to give a permission to change the rite. At the same time, to emphasise the underlying teaching and theology about the rites and Churches, it never made it the matter of free personal choice.

In the end, due to the carelessness of some Latin priests who were indifferent to the law and the anti-Eastern xenophobia of other priests who were indifferent to our local Eastern Church here in Russia, a collapse occurred in the Roman Catholic Church in this country: half of the parishioners and seminarians are not their own, but are in a kind of leasing, not to say of many marriages that are later deemed invalid due to jurisdiction problems. In other words, ritually and canonically, these are Byzantine Catholics attending Latin parishes throughout Russia who are misinformed about their own identity and status in the Catholic Church. That is a shame and a true calamity. And the Moscow ‘Synodal Path’ did not find a better way to solve the problem than to propose changing the rules of the game, hoping to have all the dues paid by a sort of bankruptcy or default. That is why the document says:

Many pastors and laypeople, recognizing the importance of preserving the richness of rituals in the Church and understanding the Holy See’s desire to resist Latinization, simultaneously emphasise that the current canonical practice regarding “rite change” violates the freedom of the faithful. Therefore, they request the Conference of Bishops to propose to the Holy See changes to the norms so that a baptised individual, who was baptised in childhood in one of the rites outside the Catholic Church but has had no contact with it, can freely choose which rite they wish to belong to at the time of joining the Catholic Church’ (emphasis added).[3]

What this means is that the Moscow Synodal Process expressed disagreement with the Roman wish to preserve the Eastern Churches, not to let them die, as well as the protest against the underlying Catholic ecclesiology and teaching of various Popes and Councils of recent centuries based on some Liberal premises akin to those underlying Alphabet agenda! Moscow Liberals claim that the right to ask for a change of rite is not enough: one must be able to choose the Church and rite like gender identity, if I am to find a comparison. Speaking of which…

What the document did mention instead was the unholy tetragrammaton – LGBT. Four times, forever introducing the ideological virus into the Russian Church’s official business. As you might suppose, Russia is a very conservative country, that is why our Catholic activists preferred ye olde four-letter form instead of the more recent LGBTQIA+ that you are used to there in the ‘degenerate West.’ But as you can also imagine, this shameful fact did not bring me much hope for the Final Document of the Synod.

But as it has just turned out, I was wrong. Thankfully.

Unity within Diversity

In the Final Document of the Synod it is reaffirmed and declared that the Bishop of Rome, as the guarantor of unity in diversity, is to protect the uniqueness of the Eastern Catholic Churches, respecting their rich traditions in theology, canon law, liturgy, and pastoral ministry. These churches have their own decision-making structures, such as the Synod of Bishops and various councils of different levels – all those being inherently ‘synodal.’ The Eastern Catholic Churches operate independently from Latin structures, maintaining their Eastern identity and autonomy, while remaining in full communion with Rome. The document admits that there has not always been kindness between the Latins and the Easterners. That is why it says it is important to remember the past in order to heal old wounds and find new ways for coexistence. The relationship between the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches should be built on the exchange of gifts, cooperation, and mutual enrichment (p. 132).

A Revival of the Pentarchy?

To strengthen relations between the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Synodal Assembly proposes setting up a Council of Patriarchs, Major Archbishops, and Metropolitans of the Eastern Catholic Churches, chaired by the Pope of Rome. This council, being an icon of synodality, would serve as a tool to promote unity by ensuring the proper blood circulation of the liturgical practices, theological heritage, canonical norms, and spiritual experiences of both East and West. Given the migration of Eastern believers to Latin-dominated regions, the document admits there is a risk of losing their identity. To address this issue, it is essential to develop mechanisms and guidelines aimed at maximising cooperation between the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches (p. 133).

There are consequences at the local and the global levels.

What it means locally for the West and Russia

Of course, the original context of the document refers to the refugees who are coming from the countries of the Middle East and Ukraine. Upon arriving in lands dominated by Roman Catholic and generally Western culture, they start to be influenced by natural processes of assimilation, which may also be accelerated by their hosts. The bishops and the entire people of God, according to this document, oppose this homogenising, with the Pope’s direct approval. One can easily project and imply this Synodal thought to the situation in Russia, where the Byzantine Church culture, however native and primary, is poorly represented in the Catholic minority population. Sometimes it is the case due to natural reasons, which can and should be fought against, as stated in the Final Document, this most recent ordinary teaching of the Catholic Church. Some other times the development is inhibited artificially, which requires immediate action:

  1. The introduction of the proper hierarchical structure for the Russian Church of the byzantine rite (as we still have no caput at pater of our own);
  2. Greater attention to the proper liturgical and theological formation of Eastern seminarians in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Decree on the Eastern Churches of the Second Vatican Council (something we occasionally get denied, although I am not to judge anybody);
  3. Intensifying the instruction of new converts in a manner that will explain the Church’s actual teaching on how exactly a baptised person belongs to the Catholic Church: through and in his or her own Particular Church, within this or that Church sui iuris, imbedded in their own rite – be it the Latin or one of the Eastern ones, that are equally valid and praised.

I dare say that at least some of those who have been in charge here in Russia and maybe some of those from the Vatican might not be extremely happy with the proposed salutary changes. But the situation must change and hopefully it will.

What it means for the entire Church and the dynamic of Ecumenism

When I first read about the suggested introduction of this ‘Council of Patriarchs’ led by the Pope, I suddenly realised that it all very much resembles the ancient system of Pentarchy I heard so much of when I was in the Russian Orthodox Church. The Pentarchy refers to five major episcopal sees of the early Christian Church that were considered to hold special authority and significance back in the first millenium. These sees were:

  1. Rome – led by the Pope, traditionally viewed as the chief apostolic see;
  2. Constantinople – “Second Rome,” the capital of the Byzantine Empire, important for its political and theological influence that were the actual cause of the city getting a silver medal in this race during the Byzantine era;
  3. Alexandria – known for its rich theological tradition and early Church Fathers.
  4. Antioch – one of the oldest Christian communities, significant in the spread of Christianity.
  5. Jerusalem – the original centre of Christianity, holding deep historical and spiritual significance, although that see had faded in population and influence long before even the first Ecumenical Council.

The initial Pentarchy emerged within the Byzantine theological thought as a way to organise ecclesiastical authority and maintain unity within the Universal Church under the Eastern Roman Empire, within the Roman universe. (It was also central to the Eastern Orthodox debate with the Roman Catholic claims of the Papacy in the first millennium, but that is beyond the scope of these short comments).[4] Was it a successful project?

On the one hand, the Pentarchia did reflect the geographical and theological diversity of the early Church, emphasising the importance of these key patriarchal sees, starting from the see of St. Peter. On the other hand, the whole thing was very much based on civil authorities and cultural Romanitas, as it is clearly seen from the history of the initial Ecumenical Councils that were sponsored and organised by greenhorn Christian Caesars (sometimes at the cost of severe doctrinal and canonical contamination), not to mention a few schisms that arguably would not have happened if there had been more Church, less Roman politics involved into the regulation. After all, with no Orthodox Caesars around for a while, the Pentarchy had faded into a memory, a fairy tale, another fancy item in the museum of the Christian East. It had been the case. Until a few days ago.

The Pentarchy 2.0 proposed by the Synodal Assembly and approved by the Successor of Peter includes many more hierarchs than five in order to involve every historic Church in union with Rome regardless of their mutual background and rivalry, which used to be severe in far too many cases… It is also intended to be a much more regular and effective institution, more independent from any particular political environment. After all, this Pentarchy 2.0 would be not a single council to repeat once every century, but something like the existing “Bishops Conferences” among the Latins or, more traditionally, the “Holy Synods” of the eastern churches.

The proposed Council does not simply divide this world into canonical fiefs, rating the hierarchs according to the primacy of honour that is due to each of them. (This is something the Eastern Orthodox world has been very much engaged in, for it is the only thing they can do with the antique mummy of initial Pentarchy that died from a series of schisms, finally detached from its head,  Rome.) Instead, this new ‘Pentarchal’ council would ideally prevent or quickly stop the malicious processes of competition and xenophobia that has led the Church to the abyss too many times in hisitory. Will it help to restore the unity with the rest of the Christian East? One cannot say yet for sure, but the move will certainly make a huge difference, because it is so unprecedented and challenging for the (yet) non-Catholic Churches.

In the next part, we will discuss what other changes are proposed by the Final Document regarding relations with different Christian Churches on the issues that have been most pressing for this dialogue: Uniatism, the universal authority of the Roman bishop, the danger of ‘church dictatorship,’ and more. We will even see how Pope Francis, at least on paper, has essentially heeded the voice of the entire Church and his fellow bishops (whom I call the ‘collective Paul’) to correct some very painful injustices against Eastern Catholics in which he himself participated while dealing with the Moscow Patriarch Kirill in 2016.


[1] As Haynes points out his report, “Under Francis’ own 2018 Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis communio, once the final document of a synod ‘is expressly approved by the Roman Pontiff, the Final Document participates in the ordinary Magisterium of the Successor of Peter.’” On the meaning of the term “ordinary Magisterium,” see the work of OnePeterFive contributing editor, Dr. John Joy, On the Ordinary & Extraordinary Magisterium (Arouca Press, 2nd ed.).

[2] Итоговый отчет процесса подготовки к Синоду епископов в Архиепархии Божьей Матери в Москве, URL: https://cathmos.ru/documents/itogovyj-otchet-proczessa-podgotovki-k-sinodu-episkopov-v-arhieparhii-bozhej-materi-v-moskve/

[3] Ibid, p. 45

[4] On this, see the work of Erick Ybarra, The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox (Emmaus Road, 2022).