TRILOGY: Bk I, Ch 34 (Jackass for the Hour)

Arise! Let us be going!

“It was damage control against Erasmus and Luther, wasn’t it?” asked Cardinal Fidèle, having moved the argument along, referring now to the fourth session of the Council of Trent [SEE HERE (01)]. He knew this question carried the danger that Father Alexámenos would have the opportunity to explain the study he had done, and defend himself against the charge that had been laid against him, why he had been brought to trial in the first place. Yet, Cardinal Fidèle was confident that he could quash Father Alexámenos just as he had dealt with all previous challenges to his relativism.

“Trent was more than damage control in view of the ‘Reformation’,” exclaimed Father Alexámenos. “Trent promoted the Faith, speaking of the unity of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Church’s Magisterium. Of course, in doing this, the Council Fathers did effectively deal with Erasmus’ opinion of the authenticity of the account of the adulterous woman, the one who didn’t get stoned to death, the one forever part of John’s Gospel. The Council Fathers did this by establishing that Scripture had to be completed within the aetas apostolica, the apostolic age [SEE HERE (02)], and that this part of Scripture met those criteria, not only because it was to be found in some Greek manuscripts, but also because it is clearly part of the Vulgate described by Trent in the first decree of its fourth session. This part of Scripture had textual critical integrity and, even if some don’t think so [SEE HERE (03)], this is all scientifically possible” [SEE HERE (04)].

“What Trent promulgated was never mentioned again, not even when Gregory XVI and Pius IX condemned the Bible Societies,” objected Cardinal Fidèle. “Why don’t you admit that you deny that the Ordinary Magisterium can guide the Church? The charge is that you deny this.”

“As far as Pope Gregory and Pope Pius IX go, you must know that they were speaking from the perspective of Trent,” began Father Alexámenos. “They didn’t have to repeat the entirety of the fourth session of that Council every time they wrote something themselves. As far as what Trent said never being mentioned again, you only have to go as far as Vatican Council I to see that the particular Vulgate desired by Trent is to be a textual critical measure of what is to be found in the original language manuscripts. The argument is unmistakably phrased as a confirmation of the decree in Trent. Just look in the dogmatic constitution, Dei Filius” [SEE HERE (05)].

“That is not necessary,” the Cardinal said, trying to avoid the clarity of both Trent and Vatican I. “We only have to look at what Pius XII wrote in his letter Divino afflante Spiritu…” [SEE HERE (06)].

“But Pius XII didn’t say anything which contradicted the statements of Trent, which, in fact, were not surpassed by his own appreciation of the original text,” interrupted Father Alexámenos.

The Cardinal’s argument was preempted, and so he simply went on to what he thought would end the argument, saying, “The Dogmatic Constitution of Vatican Council II, Dei Verbum, expressly said that translations could be made with the cooperation of the Separated Brethren.”

“I’ve been hoping that would have happened by now,” said Father Alexámenos.

“It’s been happening for years. Where have you been?” began the Cardinal, astounded that Father Alexámenos would take up his own weapon. “And what you have been saying is that…”

Father Alexámenos interrupted: “Communicatio cum hereticis in divinis became easier when one of Elzevir’s predecessors published in the penultimate number of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis of 1967 a formula for the Profession of Faith which replaced the formula mandated by Trent and Pius X’s oath against Modernism, the later of which expressly forbade communion with heretics in divine things.”

“What does that have to do with anything?” asked the Prelate, annoyed.

“Any direct mention of Magisterial custody of Sacred Scripture or any repudiation of rationalistic textual criticism was conveniently no longer to be found in the new formula. Rationalistic principles guiding ecumenical cooperation on textual criticism would soon be established at Pentecost of 1968, with the Guiding Principles for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible. The praxis that one can do whatever one wants – salvo Ecclesiae iudicio, with the New Vulgate said to be an example of the judgment of the Church – is incorrect, for the very judgment of the Church is bound to the dogmatic decisions of the Council of Trent. If you look closely at the introductions to the New Vulgate, you will see that the New Vulgate is not held to be an expression of the judgement of the Church. It is merely an expression of the opinions of a few people. Ecumenical cooperation must involve the ‘old’ Vulgate as it was desired by Trent! I’m waiting for Vatican II to be implemented. Up to this time, it’s been absolutely forbidden by…”

“What you say is dangerous,” said Cardinal Fidèle, almost inaudibly. “You must be stopped.”

“I would love to see rules for ecumenical cooperation established,” said Father Alexámenos, “but not according to the lowest common denominator that has been promoted by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity [SEE HERE (07)] – the lowest common denominator of nothing – which has destroyed true ecumenism, and has turned the Holy See into a laughing stock, except that everyone cries. Rules for cooperation should be established according to the truths which we know from the Councils of Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II, for these are consistent with each other. Yet, I would even go one step more, not away from the truth, but in view of ecumenism. I propose that…”

“Are you another Dolindo Ruotolo with another edition of Un gravissimo pericolo?” [SEE HERE (08)] asked Cardinal Fidèle. “Are you holier than the Church, more Roman than Rome, more Catholic than the Pope? Are you the standard beyond which there is nothing? With you before us, is there non plus ultra?”

This brought muffled laughter from the crowd, but the Pope said, “Go on, Alexámenos.”

“I am reminded of the strident comments about those who are said not to be well versed in integral doctrine, which were repeated at the symposium at Grottammare, hometown of Sixtus V, in 1985” [SEE HERE (09)], continued Father Alexámenos. “You are quite aware, since you’ve read my study, that a more rigorous set of scientific standards can be implemented than are presently being used [SEE HERE (10)], as well as a procedure able to facilitate an ecumenical effort in such a way that abundant light might be shed on an authentic path to unity, all in line with past Councils. Let me explain…” [SEE HERE (11)].

Cardinal Fidèle touched his earlobe and, as planned, the media aired advertisements while Father Alexámenos enthusiastically explained his vision for cooperation and unity. The media also ran an update of activities in Campo dei Fiori. The pile of logs was growing quickly, beyond expectations.

When the coverage of the trial continued, Father Alexámenos was speaking of the failure of the Roman Curia to promote true unity. “Take for instance,” he said, “the way the Holy See insulted the Lutherans some years ago by telling them it would be nice to come up with a joint translation of the Scriptures if the Lutherans followed the textual critical translation policies of Liturgiam authenticam, forcing them to use the New Vulgate as a guide for any disputed texts” [SEE HERE (12)].

“I thought you would have supported the use of that document, Father. After all, its usage was demanded by someone at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Even Cardinal Francisco thinks that that document is, in itself, a litmus test of orthodoxy, and the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments was, of course, ecstatic about its usage.”

“The Roman Curia thought that they were being nice in asking for it to be used, but the Lutherans had to call foul,” replied Father Alexámenos.

“But why wouldn’t its usage be nice?” asked Cardinal Fidèle. “It has Catholics bow down before Lutherans.”

“Because,” replied Father Alexámenos, “the New Testament of the New Vulgate is a horrific quasi-imitation of what Erasmus himself did. In other words, the Latin of the Catholic New Vulgate was freshly translated from the wildly eclectic Greek ‘text’ of the New Testament developed by modern-day Lutherans and Bible Societies from 1898 until today. In this way, the Latin of the New Vulgate ignored the Latin that Trent wanted to see used, namely, what was to be found in manuscripts from the beginning until and only until Trent. Because of this, untold numbers of words and phrases were dropped or changed or added in the Latin of the New Vulgate compared to the Vulgate which Trent wanted to see. Many of them, often important, are not mentioned in the notes of the New Vulgate. Many changes happen to be easily adapted to a Protestant Theology. Thus, just like Erasmus, but even worse, today’s Pontifical Council for Christian Unity is bringing about a Reformation, but this time, within the Church, in the sense that…”

Not letting Father Alexámenos make his answer, Cardinal Fidèle exclaimed: “But aren’t Protestants pleased that Tradition and the Magisterium were being ignored?” The Cardinal was more intent on discrediting the argument of Father Alexámenos than in being consistent himself.

“However,” Father Alexámenos continued… “like Erasmus, the New Vulgate kept some of the larger texts, such as that of the adulterous woman not being stoned to death in the Gospel of John. This is infuriating to modern Lutherans, who, unlike Luther, are intent on having her removed from the text, stoned to death as it were. They say that there are not ‘enough’ Greek manuscripts to support the text, but it is only a move against Trent and the Catholic Church. Cardinal Ámura – who came close to being elected the Bishop of Rome – had long been battling to keep her out of the Vulgate, and had attempted to have her stoned to death, right out of the Greek text. He showed his true colours recently when, effectively, he publicly encouraged women like her to have an abortion, as well as wanting that the Pope permit in-vitro-fertilization, embryonic stem-cell research, euthanasia and homosexual unions. With this, the Lutherans are not going to be belittled by the Roman Curia, who pretend not to know that what they are doing by insisting on Liturgiam authenticam and its New Vulgate with the adulterous woman. This is keeping our brothers away, giving them half-measures of compromise, not the fulness of truth. The policy is double-edged damage control, not presenting the Vulgate that Trent wanted, but still retaining the adulterous woman. It is a setting out to accomplish what Erasmus and Luther wanted, but pretending to be Catholic at the same time, a kind of having your cake and eating it as well. This is insulting to the intelligence of the Protestants.”

“You have very severe words for Holy Mother Church,” judged Cardinal Fidèle.

“Not Holy Mother Church… just some Cardinals, your Eminence, and a few in the Roman Curia. Consider my words as a courtesy, a service, a note about grave inconsistency. Liturgiam authenticam is condescending in that its use for the projected translation with the Lutherans had the end of producing a liturgical Lectionary. This mocks the reason why the Council Fathers of Trent wanted to use the Vulgate to discover the textual critical extension of the original language manuscripts. They thought that since God provided that the Latin translation was used consistently throughout the centuries in, for instance, the Sacrifice of the Mass, at the Heart of our worship of the Incarnate Word of God, that such usage just had to point to the actual words of Scripture which were inspired to form us into the Word of God Incarnate, and that these original words can be found in the original language manuscripts by comparing such manuscripts with what was used in the Latin Liturgy, so as to come up with…” [SEE HERE (13)].

“I know all about it,” said Cardinal Fidèle, exasperated. He noticed that the cameras were broadcasting once again. He tried to get them to run more advertisements, but they would not. He decided to take another tack. “Father, is everyone in the Roman Curia so unintelligent?”

“Our non-Catholic brothers are intelligent, your Eminence. They know when they are treated like ignorant children. The directive in Liturgiam authenticam, ordering them to use the New Vulgate, mocks Trent. But they know that what has been done is merely a halfhearted repetition of what Pope Sixtus V did. That Pope was correct in his appraisal of Trent, but the physical text he had in hand was mistaken [SEE HERE (14)]. God took his life before his decree about his text could come into effect [SEE HERE (15)]. Liturgiam authenticam was only a halfhearted repetition of this since Liturgiam authenticam was not claimed to be infallible, any more than Bellarmine’s rubbishy rules published by Tromp in his De revisione [SEE HERE (16)]. Your Eminence, Bellarmine repented of following Erasmus. That repentance, in the face of the temptation of political correctness, takes a saint. Ultimately, whatever anyone says, neither the Lutherans nor anyone else truly want a declaration of Scriptura sola, Scripture alone, along with a rejection of Tradition and the Magisterium. Our brothers want the fulness of Truth in Charity, which alone establishes unity. They test us, looking for this, but some of us are failing, for the moment, in that…”

“But Nolli said that…” said Cardinal Fidèle.

“Nolli can say what he wants, your Eminence; he has nothing to do with the Magisterium. That’s just the damage control of appeasement. Besides, even he is ambiguous.”

“At any rate, I don’t see how you can call our Separated Brethren brothers,” said the Prelate.

“The phrase fratres seiuncti, your Eminence, means brothers who are a small distance away, with the emphasis being on unity, at least when compared with the redoubled distancing in your translation of ‘Separated Brethren’. You think that separati refers to our brothers being put at a distance with the emphasis in their being cut off. That is not a good image of cutting a Covenant in our common Baptism, no matter how much one wrongly hopes for a false ‘unity’ of loosely federated ‘churches’ with no Pope. Saint Augustine, instead, proclaimed them to be brothers. He said that they are cut off from the body. Yet, he says, ‘We confirm you as brothers through the same compassion of Charity, from whose milk we are nourished, from whose Bread we are strengthened, through Christ our Lord, with whose humility we confirm you.’ With Augustine, I say that it is time that we put into action the great Charity of the infinite mercy in God.”

Before Cardinal Fidèle could respond, Monsignor Sens spoke, so confident was he, due to his having been the messenger of Father Alexámenos’ planned demise, regardless of the decision of Pope Tsur-Ēzer. Since the Pontiff had taken control of the trial and appointed Cardinal Fidèle as the Special Prosecutor and himself as an aide for the defence, he was sure that he was being called upon to condemn Father Alexámenos. He thought that now was his chance. Leaning into his microphone, he said, “Father Alexámenos will pay for his indiscretion, disrespect and rejection of Church doctrine and policy in the name of mercy. We will witness heaven’s vengeance.”

The Cardinal himself wanted to condemn Father Alexámenos, and so said, “Sens, you speak out of turn.” The Cardinal then turned to Father Alexámenos and said, “I agree that Augustine was a saint for his time, but we must be saints for our time. Can you not compromise for the good of the Church, for the good of the world? Are you so intransigent? So heartless? Can you not come with us for friendship as we attempt to do something for the world?” The last question was his constant refrain. “If not,” he concluded, “you are not very ecumenical.” These last words, he thought, constituted the condemnation summarising all condemnations.

But Father Alexámenos quickly replied: “It depends on your definition of ecumenism, your Eminence. If ecumenism refers to having the whole inhabited world believe that, in view of the Redemption, there is to be but one Body and one Spirit, called as we are to one Hope in one Lord, to one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, Who is above all and through all and in all, well then, I am very ecumenical. The Catholic Church is the Universal Church, those who are called by the Holy Spirit to cry out to the Father through, with and in Jesus. You should know that the Living Truth, the Chari…”

“What is Truth?” interrupted the Cardinal, beside himself.

Father Alexámenos said to Cardinal Fidèle, “If you pretend to suppress the Living Truth Incarnate for the sake of what you think unity is now, there will only be a more terrible division later, when people will proclaim their belief strongly even while others demonstrate their intransigence in their dictatorial relativism.” Momentarily too clever, Father Alexámenos cited The Passion of the Christ: “Si non vis veritatem audire, nemo tibi dicere potest. If you don’t want to hear the truth, no one can tell it to you.”

“Damn you!” shouted the Cardinal.

Before the Holy Father could intervene, Father Alexámenos said, “I agree. Of myself, I have no Charity. Even if I should give my body to be burnt, without Charity, it is nothing; I am nothing. But Deus est Caritas, and He calls even me to Himself.”

“You condemn yourself out of your own mouth,” replied Cardinal Fidèle. The Cardinal was at a loss, and could only offer what was now an illogical conclusion: “You do not agree with the prudential practice of the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit. You thus condemn the Ordinary Magisterium and the Holy Father. Non mendacia… non minus recta… propagare, sed vera solummodo! Like Ruotolo and Spadafora, I condemn you on behalf of the Pontifical…”

Pope Tsur-Ēzer thundered the words of Savonarola: “Questo non tocca a te!” words bringing fear to Cardinal Fidèle. “It is you who have not understood this priest’s defence of Holy Mother Church, and all Her children. He has pointed out that the Sacrifice of Christ is central to Revelation and our worship, how we live our Faith with Charity, the full definition of Tradition, quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, what is believed always, everywhere, by everyone. Unlike what Islam and our fratres seiuncti have presented, he has shown how the Church remained with the Truth, even if some of Her members have been doing damage control by imposing the lowest common denominator of nothing…”

But Cardinal Fidèle had been pulling on his ear lobe, the signal for the media to cut off coverage of the trial and go to advertisements. This time, they took the hint. The rest of the Pope’s response was not broadcast. The Holy Father had hoped to preempt what now – from the report of Monsignor Sens – seemed to be the inevitable death of Father Alexámenos. This was sufficient for many in the Audience Hall, but others only became all the more aggravated.

•••—•••—•••

The diplomats and don Hash were still watching the proceedings in the offices of the Cardinal Secretary of State before the advertisements began. Don Hash noted the anger of the Ambassador of Arāk and, clutching the Fisherman’s Ring, prayed for the proceedings to go well, using the American Ambassador’s words as a silent prayer: “What are you going to do, Father?”

“Damn that Pope!” said the Ambassador of Arāk standing up, unsheathing his sword once again and holding it toward one of the televisions whose station had not cut to advertisements.

“You are not to say that here,” protested Cardinal Elzevir with loyal anger.

“I shall say what I please,” insisted the Ambassador with venom, now holding his sword to the face of the Cardinal Secretary of State. “That Pope is threatening to make that priest look like one of your saints. It must be stopped. That priest must be stopped. At this rate, the whole world will forget about the blasphemy of Islam and Allah perpetrated by that priest.”

“I am sure that the Holy Father does not want to blaspheme either Islam or Allah,” said the Cardinal. He did not know how to speak for the Holy Father on this occasion. Instead, he was merely demonstrating the extent of the vagueness being suffered by so many members of the Roman Curia. What he said was correct, but only because the Pontiff did not consider Islam or Allah to be worthy of blasphemy, which could only be wrought against the true God.

“That priest’s blasphemy of Islam and Allah must not be forgotten!” repeated the Ambassador, now pointing the sword at the image of Father Alexámenos on the television screen.

“Don’t be so tiresome,” said the American Ambassador quietly.

The Ambassador of Arāk brought the sword to the side of the American’s neck, slightly drawing blood. The more excited Shaykh al-Hasan became, the more the American looked bored. “Never forgotten!” insisted the Ambassador. “He will be dead before the midday devil sets.”

“What he has done will not be forgotten, friend!” declared don Hash, who also stood up.

“What?!” they all said in unison.

“How long will you all waver?” he asked. “If Jesus is God, follow Him, if Allah, follow him.” They knew don Hash was making an adapted citation of the prophet Elijah, just before he decapitated eight hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and Asherah. Like all of the people of Israel at the time, the diplomats did not answer him a word, though his ‘friend’ from Arāk was grinning. “Within a few minutes you will see a hint of what I will do,” continued don Hash with brave enthusiasm. Turning to face Shaykh al-Hasan, he said, “Ambassador, I will need your sword.”

The Ambassador of Arāk took people at their word if they claimed to be swordsmen. He tossed the sword in such a way that it would be easy for don Hash to grab its handle… if he was a swordsman; if not, he would be hurt, even mortally. Don Hash caught it easily, flipping it in the air again, testing its balance. The Ambassador said, “It’s not that I trust you, Hash. I have no fear. But you, with your crucified Jesus, live perpetually in the darkest of fears.”

Don Hash manoeuvred the sword round about and said, “Shaykh al-Hasan! This is the finest weapon I’ve ever wielded.”

The Ambassador relaxed, and said proudly, “It is said to have belonged to Elijah, whom you cited so well. It is used for trophy killings.”

Don Hash had a wicked grin on his face, looking captivated at the possibility of violence. He gripped the handle with both hands and made a chopping motion, as if decapitating a false prophet. He then suddenly spun around and, with all his strength, slammed the sword through the side of a wooden sculpture sitting on the large coffee-table in front of them. The artwork could have been anything, perhaps Abraham’s son about to be offered in sacrifice, or one of the eight hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and Asherah being decapitated by Elijah, or Saint Lawrence burning on a gridiron, asking to be turned over. Don Hash looked to see if he missed, so smoothly had the sword decapitated the sculpture, sending the head spinning into the air above them. Don Hash caught it with his left hand, tossing it lightly to Shaykh al-Hasan, who, laughing as he rose, placed it on the silver tea tray, giving it to Cardinal Elzevir. The irony was not lost on him and, as he glared at the Ambassador of Arāk, the Prelate dropped the tray and head on the floor.

“I see that your military training in Italy and West Point hasn’t been wasted,” said the Ambassador to don Hash, showing that he had done his homework on the young priest, and the fact that he was pleased to have a swordsman in front of him.

Cardinal Elzevir – judging from his experience of the meetings at Cardinal Fidèle’s apartment in San Calisto – hoped that don Hash was intelligent enough to manipulate such situations to his own ends. Though he could not be sure of anything, Cardinal Elzevir was as willing to take don Hash’s lead as he had been to take the lead of Cardinal Fidèle. Father Alexámenos had not made the Chinese affair public, and this was well appreciated by Cardinal Elzevir.

“Perhaps I misjudged you, Hash,” said the Ambassador of Arāk. “Clearly you’ve had a duel with your conscience, and only you remain standing. Hah! Use the sword well. I only wish I was in your place. A friend decapitating a friend will give the sword even greater value.”

With a confident, strong voice, don Hash cited the words of Christ as Judas came to give Him the kiss of betrayal, of death, in the Garden of Gethsemane: “Arise! Let us be going!” But no one understood the intent of his words in the least.

•••—•••—•••

The Holy Father had recapped the previous sessions, including the present one, making incisive comments about the place of the Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Bible desired by Trent, as opposed to the Vulgate actually used at the Council of Trent, or the Vulgate which was constantly revised afterward, including, especially, the New Vulgate. He also criticized the Roman Curia’s jingoism regarding the abuse crisis. He compared the sex-sodden psychoanalysis – insisted upon by the Curia for all seminarians – to pornographic ‘child-self-protection’ programmes. The children were being raped of their innocence while adults were taught to blame the children if abuse occurred. The seminarians were being raped of their integrity while society was being taught that they were now protected from non-integral personalities, having to blame themselves if abuse occurred. The Pontiff then made a summary in another way, asking Father Alexámenos about the Immaculate Conception of Mary. “Father,” he began, “are you an ultramontanist, in the sense that everything that is said on this side of the mountains, on this side of the Alps, is absolute truth, always, in every case?”

“Your Holiness,” replied Father Alexámenos, “such ultramontanists are thieves. They steal away the glory due to the Lord in redeeming all of us, saying, for instance, that Cardinals and Popes are always saints by divine right, and have no need of redemption or correction, ever, on any topic.”

“That kind of ultramontanist is particularly annoying,” replied the Pope. “But would you admit that someone such as Saint Thomas Aquinas may need correction?” Father Alexámenos did not respond, to the evident pleasure of the Pope. “When Aquinas spoke of the Immaculate Conception in his Summa Theologiae,” continued the Pontiff, “did he have the idea that the Blessed Virgin, the very Mother of God, had suffered bodily infirmities due to Adam’s sin?”

“Yes,” replied Father Alexámenos, “but not any corruption of soul. He was reconciling his mediaeval idea of the soul entering the body only some time after conception on the one hand, with the necessity of Redemption on the other. Yet, he admitted to the grace Mary was given of being preserved from all spiritual stain of Adam’s sin. In this way, he held her to be immaculate, full of grace. At the end of his life, during a homily in Naples, he fully assented to the…”

Pope Tsur-Ēzer cut him off, not wanting to be distracted. “But in the case of her bodily weakness, would this not somehow limit her from being a perfect mediatrix of all graces?”

“Thomas, the Angelic Doctor – Doctor humanitatis, as one Pope called him – held that she was mediatrix of all graces,” asserted Father Alexámenos. “However, you are correct.”

“Go on,” said Pope Tsur-Ēzer.

“The purity of soul that she enjoyed, her transformation in sanctifying grace, living in the presence of God, would require that she have a body with no weakness,” said Father Alexámenos.

“So, for instance,” said the Holy Father, “in her perfect goodness, her soul would have been thrown into such grief with the devastating sight of her Son, God’s innocent Son, hanging tortured on the Cross for the likes of us, that a body not matching the perfection of her soul would not have been able to bear the strain.”

“Exactly,” Father Alexámenos replied. “Having a body which was not touched by the effects of Adam’s sin did not mean that she would suffer less. Perfection of body would open her up to suffering more. Only the most perfect heart of flesh could endure the sword of sorrow which pierced through it as she stood under the Cross. In her perfect purity, she perfectly saw our utter wretchedness, just by looking at the havoc we wreaked upon her Son on the Cross by our sin. She could, therefore, intercede for us perfectly and immediately by uniting herself with her Son’s will to redeem us: “Father, forgive them!” were also her words, even though she knew full well that she also had to be redeemed from the first moment of her existence. In this way, she endured the pangs of giving birth to the members of the Mystical Body of Christ.”

“So, you are brave enough to refine Saint Thomas?” asked the Pope.

“My reflection is that of a weak sinner,” said Father Alexámenos, “not that of the Angelic Doctor, who would not only accept Magisterial instruction on Revelation, but would plumb the depths of the doctrine quickly and profoundly. Now he sees God face to Face.”

“But he was a saint. How could he not fully believe what the Church has always believed, what is now dogmatically defined?” asked the Pope.

“But Holy Father, he did believe with the supernatural gift of Faith in this doctrine on this earth even though he did not fully assent to it with his theological perspective for some time.”

“But didn’t Thomas say something about Faith implying the assent of the intellect to what is believed? And since he did,” said Pope Tsur-Ēzer, not waiting for an answer, “it must be that he is incorrect about his idea that assent necessarily, in each case, follows belief, isn’t that right, Father? Otherwise, he would have had no Faith at all, for he was wrong about God’s Mother.”

“Thomas would never say that a newly baptised baby, for instance, is bereft of the action of the supernatural, sanctifying grace of the infused virtue of Faith, regardless of how much others supply the assent of the child, who is quite unaware of what is happening to him ,” said Father Alexámenos. “Thomas himself was unaware of his supernatural belief concerning this aspect of the person of the Mother of God by way of the supernaturally infused virtue of Faith. Inasmuch as Faith is supernatural, our natural brains cannot appreciate its Truth immediately and directly. We are not always perfect in our assent, though we are ready, in grace, to assent when we know how to do so.”

“How does one assent to anything if one doesn’t know anything?” asked the Pontiff. “The infused ‘Traditiones’ as Trent called them, are supernatural. Our natural brains cannot immediately grasp the content of divinely provided Faith.”

“Supernatural Faith,” replied Father Alexámenos, “works on our natural consciences in such manner, Thomas says, that when what is consonant with Faith presents itself to us through the senses, like Christ crucified, we are urged, even with actual grace, to make a practical, natural judgment of assent to that truth. When something is not consonant with the Faith, we are urged to reject it. Thomas didn’t understand that the Greek of Luke’s account of the Annunciation infers the immaculate conception of our Blessed Mother, and so had difficulty in…”

“So,” interrupted the Pontiff, “if believing is supernatural and giving our assent is natural, however much that action of assent is also brought about by grace, we must call that very first, primitive judgment and assent the beginning of theology, and not Faith as such, don’t you agree?”

“Your Holiness, the age-old battle of whether epistemological primacy is to be attributed to the intellect or the will is to be resolved here. Each plays its part in believing and assent, for the lifting up of the conscience and the correct appreciation of sense knowledge. This is clear.”

“Really? Is it so very obvious?” asked Pope Tsur-Ēzer, coming to the point. “Why, then, did Erasmus and Luther miss out? How is it that they did not drink from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as one supernatural Revelation wrought by the Holy Spirit?” Father Alexámenos could not answer immediately, so the Holy Father continued with a string of questions: “How is it that they did not unite themselves with the Mystical Body of Christ in the Charity of Christ? How is it that they rejected the living Faith, supernaturally given Truth in Charity, and instead accepted their own, merely theological, human assent to whatever they imagined? How is it that they stopped offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, bypassing the Chalice, the Holy Grail, the Precious Blood of Christ Jesus?”

“Your Holiness… I am overwhelmed… The mysterium iniquitatis, the mystery of iniquity, is as difficult to explain as free will and predestination. Yet, similar to the case of Aquinas, there can be post-Reformation Protestants, who, by Baptism…”

“So…” interrupted the Pope, “if someone doesn’t assent to what he doesn’t realise that he is already believing supernaturally, that is not a sin for him… is that what you are saying?”

“What I’m saying is that if someone is not a heretic on purpose…” began Father Alexámenos.

“Error doesn’t justify!” exclaimed the Pope, testing Father Alexámenos with this comment.

“But Baptism does justify!” Father Alexámenos shot back, enjoying himself. “Moreover, all the evil inversion that follows upon a malicious attack on the Faith is not necessarily in store for someone who does not understand, and is not attacking the Faith. They are being inundated with actual grace, moving them to assent more fully to the supernatural Faith by which, in their Baptism, they can be united with God. Take the example of seminarians of these days asking the kind of questions which seem to betray that they know little about, or have even rejected the Faith. It is only if they belligerently reject a reasoned explanation of the Church’s teaching that one is to worry about their suitability for the priesthood.”

“Doesn’t all that ignorant innocence take away missionary impetus? Shouldn’t we be happy to have Protestants remain protéstant?” asked the Pope, knowing a good answer would be given.

“Your Holiness, we must desire all the more that they kneel before the Eucharistic Sacrifice with us in one Family of Faith. Confession and all the other Sacraments are so important.”

“And who do you think the greatest missionary of the Church is?” asked Pope Tsur-Ēzer.

“The Blessed Virgin!” exclaimed Father Alexámenos, almost before the question was asked. “She is the Immaculate Woman of Genesis 3,15, who gives birth to God’s Word, thus doing more than any of us to bring salvation to the world, giving us the very Saviour Himself. She is a perfect expression of mercy. She is the Mother of Mercy. She is most thankful for all the mighty works of God.”

“So, Father, with her intercession, does God’s mercy extend to Muslims and Protestants?”

“Of course! Her Son is the Lord of all,” said Father Alexámenos.

“Why, Alexámenos, did this missionary Woman, this Virgin, eager for conversions, appear in Guadalupe, crushing the crescent moon that fades away before God’s life within her?”

“This signifies the passing away of the human sacrifice wrought by the Gentiles,” replied Father Alexámenos. “Many in Mexico have remained faithful to the Virgin Mother.”

“But why, in Portugal, did the Mother of God appear in Fātimah, named after the youngest daughter of Muhammad?” pressed the Holy Father.

“Despite misleading statements about interreligious dialogue hailing from Fātimah in recent years,” Father Alexámenos began, “it remains true that the Immaculate Virgin appeared at Fātimah to teach us that it will be the Eucharistic Reparation which people offer – the Child-Sacrifice of the Son of God – that will bring the Gentiles to the one, true Faith, even those given over to child-sacrifice, as some are, because of what is written in the Qur’an. They don’t believe that the corruption of Adam’s sin is passed on, in all justice, to his children, and so they can’t say why even little children suffer and die. Not daring to blame Allah, they blame themselves, falling into despair. They even blame their children. How sad.”

“The premises of the argument are ready,” said the Pope. He paused for effect. Then, with a tone of voice which see everyone one edge, asked, “Tell us, what is the answer to relativism?”

“Your Holiness, the sessions of the trial should have made this clear. The fact is that…”

But Father Alexámenos stopped speaking, distracted by Cardinal Fidèle, who, though now stripped of his microphone, was muttering loudly enough for those on stage to hear, but not those in the Hall. The words were repeated with an almost tangible hatred, as if spoken by evil incarnate, the Evil One within him, citing Luther with centuries’ worth of pronunciation changes: “‘Leipzig Ezel! Papistesel… Papstesel mit langen Eselsohren und verdammtem Lügenmaul… Leipzig Jackass! Papist Jackass… Pope-Jackass with long donkey ears and damned lies. Papist und Esel sei ein Ding. Papist and Jackass are the same thing! An asinine ass!’ Non serviam. I will not serve. Never!”

•••—•••—•••

Just then, don Hash walked out onto the stage with Cardinal Elzevir. The three other diplomats – the Ambassadors of America and Arāk, and the Italian Secretary of State – remained at the door leading onto the stage. Don Hash went directly up to the Holy Father and interrupted his request for Father Alexámenos to continue. The Guards had to let him do this since the Cardinal Secretary of State was with him. Since the sword of Shaykh al-Hasan was in his right hand, don Hash used his left hand to take the Holy Father’s hand, squeezing it until he almost winced with pain. The Pontiff saw that don Hash was wearing the Fisherman’s Ring upside down, so that the Cross of the special ring in honour of Saint Peter was right-side up. The Pope hoped that the meeting at the Secretariat of State had been successful, and that this gesture with the ring boded well for Father Alexámenos. Don Hash simply said, “Holy Father!” and dropped to his knees, bowing his head, placing the hand of the Pope on his own head. The Pontiff took the hint and gave him a blessing without him having to ask for it. It was an extended blessing, in Latin, as he knew it would be. It was so softly spoken that even the sensitive microphones could only amplify some words. As the Pontiff raised his right hand to make the Sign of the Cross, don Hash interrupted, loudly saying, “Your Holiness, may I have your blessing for what you are delegating me to say?”

Pope Tsur-Ēzer guessed that don Hash was carrying out some kind of elaborate, biblical style ‘deception’. Fully realising that the life of Father Alexámenos was hanging in the balance – for civil politics would almost surely run their course – the Pontiff trusted in Divine Providence and responded with a robust voice, giving don Hash the Trinitarian blessing, making the Sign of the Cross over his head.

Walking to the centre of the stage, don Hash swung the sword around lightly with one hand, slicing through the top of the large candle as if it hadn’t been there, as if it were being decapitated. The top of the candle did not fall, but stayed in place. The large flame did not go out.

Taking a microphone in his hands, don Hash said, “I thank the Ambassador of Arāk for the use of his sword. I shall use it again this Friday.”

And with that, don Hash, with all his might, hit the candle just above the previous cut, this time with the side of the sword, sending the top part of the candle flying across the stage directly at Father Alexámenos, who caught it with both hands, making him wince in pain, for his hands were almost healed, but not completely. The flame of the triple wick was extinguished, and was now pumping out putrid smoke. Don Hash asked, “In whose hands is your life, Father?”

“Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir,” repeated Father Alexámenos.

Don Hash instantly replied: “This reminds me of when the new Lutherans helped to sack Rome in the spring of 1527, stripping the priests and raping the nuns. One of their soldiers dressed a jackass like a priest, called him Luther, and proclaimed him Pope.” Don Hash knew the anecdote, however true, was ambiguous, but used it for his own ends, saying, “The impenitence of the defendant is sufficient to deliver the verdict and sentence. I am told that it is appropriate for me to do this. I simply obey. He has been found guilty… He is to be put to death by burning in Campo dei Fiori, tied to the statue of Giordano Bruno, and then decapitated, should there be anything left. It has been decided that I will light the fire this Friday at 12:00 noon.”

Don Hash then turned around and went straight to Pope Tsur-Ēzer, slamming the sword into the heavy wooden table, making the Swiss Guard jump to attention and rush forward. But there was nothing they could do as they saw that don Hash had left the sword there – as if to represent the judgment itself – and was already kneeling at the feet of the Holy Father. “The worst has come to the worst, Holy Father,” he said loudly. “You know what we must do when the worst comes to the worst.” No other words passed between them. The Pontiff made the Sign of the Cross over him.

Those few minutes had been so shocking that no one thought to inquire what the guilt of Father Alexámenos might be, guessing it had to do with Islam. All in the crowd were dumbfounded, including the Muslims, who took a few moments to start cheering.

The instant don Hash had been blessed again, he rose and left the Hall to go to Castel Sant’Angelo. The Pope had no chance to respond. The Holy Father turned to face the Crucifix of San Damiano and the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. The bells of Saint Peter’s Basilica were tolling out 6:00 P.M. Pope Tsur-Ēzer knelt down and recited, with those who joined him, the Angelus, after which he gave the crowd his blessing. During these prayers, Cardinal Elzevir had instructed the Swiss Guards to take Father Alexámenos into custody. They did so, this time treating him as roughly as the Italian police had treated him at Fiumicino Airport. Father Alexámenos winced in pain, for his ribs and shoulders were not yet completely healed. He was gone before the prayers were finished, but not without a scuffle between the guards and Carpe Diem, who was ferociously protective of anyone who treated him with respect. When the Pontiff finished the last Gloria and prayers for the dead, he left the Hall, leaving unanswered the thousand questions now being shouted at him from all the reporters in the Hall. There was nothing in the trial which could convict Father Alexámenos. Instead, he was an exemple of what every priest should be. It was no longer a matter of the trial, but of how to deal with the inevitable revenge of what so many Muslims wrongly perceived to be insults. The Pope was accompanied by Monsignor Sens and Cardinal Elzevir. The Holy Father’s face was set like rock. He made no comment. They soon entered the Sacristy of the Basilica and crossed over its bridge into the Basilica, which had remained closed on the days of the Trial. The Pope finally said to Monsignor Sens, “The words you spoke, saying that Alexámenos was to be punished, should not have issued from your mouth. The heavens themselves cry out for vengeance, for purification of what is not right. Such pandering political correctness makes you the fitting instrument of the burning Truth of Heaven’s Charity. You should prepare to meet the judgment of God.”

Monsignor Sens was the object of the Pope’s complaint, but was so proud that he thought the Pope’s mentions of vengeance and political correctness were aimed at Father Alexámenos, for whom the Pope, he thought, lamented as David did over the death of his rebellious son, Absalom.

==================

Chapter 35 coming soon…

Don’t hesitate to use the comments box.

© 2007-2008 Renzo di Lorenzo — All rights reserved

Tags: Allah, Bible, Catholic, Child Abuse, Christianity, Church, Faith, God, Interreligious Dialogue, Islam, Israel, Jesus, Jews, Judaism, Muhammad, Muslims, Palestine, Politics, Qu'ran, Religion, Spirituality, Terrorism, Theology, Vatican, Zionism