Caesar Alloquitur: Know Thy Enemy

"If you know the enemy, and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself, but not the enemy, then for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy, nor yourself, then you will succumb in every battle."

~Sun Tzu

In the story of St. George, the dragon symbolizes sin, the world, and the power of the devil. This is what made the image of St. George slaying the dragon so powerful to Christendom and made St. George - to this day - the Patron Saint of Crusaders. ~DEUS+LO+VULT~

Moments before I sat down to begin writing this blog, I saw an episode of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit. It's always been a favorite show of mine; Law & Order has got to be the undisputed king of crime drama, in my opinion. As I sat down to watch the episode, it opened with a young boy being the victim of sexual assault. As investigations went on, it eventually pointed back to mother's ex-boyfriend. He was a Jew, and had gone on to fully embrace the Rabbinic religion in the Hasidic tradition. He was even becoming a Rabbi, himself. Keeping in mind the way episodes usually turn out in Law & Order whenever religion is involved (it's always the religious figure; thorough beating of conservatism ensues, cover-up, crisis of faith, secular culture vindicated) I sat down and braced for the coming beating. They might've been Jews, but the message would be the same: religion bad, secularism good. I kept in mind a story I'd heard several months back involving sexual abuse cases concerning Rabbis and small children. So I thought this was somewhat gutsy of the television show. The Catholic Church might simply shrug its shoulders and take the abuse, but the Anti-Defamation League is anything but inactive.

However, the episode took a surprising turn for the good, just when it looked the worse. The Rabbi had an alibi, but then it turned out that the Chief Rabbi had gone off with the small boy to a Hasidic gated community upstate. At first it seemed like the community was going to cover for the Chief Rabbi, up until the last moment when they arrested him at the boy arrived, screaming for them to not arrest him and not to take him away. While they were questioning the Rabbi, the most interesting thing happened and probably one of the biggest plot-twists I've ever seen in an episode. The rape kit suggested that the boy's aggressor wasn't an adult, but rather, a child. Someone who was a little more than two years older than the victim, who was ten. Further examination lead the forensics scientist for the department to believe it was a fourteen year old boy.

Oh, you're shocked now? The boy wasn't even his first - or last - younger victim.

The results came back that it indeed was someone of that sort. As this was going on, the boy explained that he asked the Rabbi to take him with him because he was scared and didn't want to go back where his abuser was. He gave the name of his abuser, and the assaulter confessed after being arrested. The trial portion of the episode was incredibly interesting. The defendant's attorney pleaded insanity for her client, citing that with all the raunchiness in our media today things like this are bound to occur, bringing up statistics and the like. The plaintiff went for the usual approach; what he did was wrong, and no matter what, he deserves to be punished. Of course this was lost on the jury.

But, the more you thought about it, and the more the trial went on, you could see how the accused was just as much a victim. In a culture that doesn't enforce moral absolutes, or really uphold a true sexual code of conduct, is this to be anything but expected? With parents becoming less and less present in their children's lives and being seen more and more as just a burden to be thrown off with spite as soon as possible, isn't this the expected result in a secular society like ours? Inevitably, we'll make deviants and criminals out of them all, if we aren't careful with how we raise our children. The turning point was, beyond a shadow of a doubt, when after the defendant was found, "Not Guilty" and two of the detectives - Munch and Stabler - had a conversation after everyone else left.

The American Judicial System even got some proper egg on its face when the young victim asked Detective Stabler, "Why didn't they believe me?" Detective Stabler, unsure how to answer said, "It's not that they didn't believe you, they just believed Jack more."

"Maybe these Hasidic parents have the right idea, unplugging their kids from the modern world."
"You can't shut out the world, John."
"These days, it might not be such a bad idea."

This statement does make someone ask very deep, very troubling questions. It's doubtless religion has had its abuses, but it's also completely doubtless that a new face for the religious demographic is emerging. Kids who came from bad homes or non-religious families and saw the problems and threw their fists down and said, "Enough! There must be a better way!" They found it in the religion of their forefathers, or in that of Catholicism, as is our case here. Even if there were abuses, it can be said that they were simply defects in the system and not intended consequences. Even if you would argue something else, it's doubtless the intentions of this newer generation are nothing if not idealistic. They've got a vision - a good one - and they want it realized not just for themselves but everyone else. So long as it can be directed to the right path to realize it and they can be unified and lead, the possibilities are endless.

The secular experiment has been a disaster on multiple fronts. There is no such thing as a Utopian society, and we here at the NSIR are not out to create or promise one. But we do promise and propose a better way. Even the culture itself is starting to realize there is virtue in the truly religious, and the truly fundamental. Like Sir Walter Scott tried to demonstrate in his books, there are so many beautiful things we are unwisely leaving behind in our rush forward toward modernity. If we are to make this a place worth fighting for, we would be wise to heed the moral lesson so subtly - and perhaps unintentionally - put into this episode I just saw. In a world where liberalism has made a mess, is authentic fundamentalism such a bad alternative, if it makes good people?

We shouldn't be ashamed of what our religion can do when good, determined, pious people put it to practice to its fullest and utmost. If we are to survive this age as our own, then we must do what the Roman Christians did during the Fall of Rome: we must form communities. Not necessarily monastic and celibate (though monks are always needed; Philip II's palace, the El Escorial was also a monastery where monks lived and these pious souls most likely proved invaluable guides and advisers to the King of Spain), but devoted and pious nonetheless. If we band together and keep strong, we will triumph. It will be difficult, getting off the internet, and into the world where we can meet one another and truly form a community. But we will do it, because it is what must be done.

It's time to get to work, Imperials.

 

Caesar Alloquitur: ~TIMEO+DANAOS+ET+DONA+FERENTES~

"Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts"

Such is the English translation of the famous Latin maxim penned by Virgil in his masterpiece, the Aeneid. Going back to Rome, the Greeks were always viewed by the west in much the same way stringent conservatives in the Southern Bible-Belt of North America might view California; a bunch of liberals and shifty types with low moral constitutions. While this certainly can't be said to be the norm, as Ancient Greece has produced some of the greatest thinkers and warriors the West itself has ever seen. But inasmuch as you cannot judge a people only by their worst members you must not always judge them by the best either.

The view of Greeks as effeminate, two-faced, and immoral stuck even into the Middle Ages. To be sure the Greeks were much more open about sexuality than the Romans were. But of course both cultures changed with time. With the advent of Christianity and assimilation taking hold in the East, Greece became one of the earliest havens of Christianity. Thessalonica, Smyrna, Iconoium, Philippi, Antioch, and Constantinople; all names that resonate even to those "Christians" not of a Roman or Orthodox persuasion. Constantinople became one of the first great Christian cities in the world, with treasures like the Hagia Sophia and other works of Christian art flourishing there, along with being the seat for many councils.

Which brings us to the topic of our article today: the Orthodox themselves. Referred to usually as, "Greeks" by the people of the Middle Ages - in spite of the fact more ethnic groups than Greeks made up the Orthodox Chuch - they developed something of a bad image in the West in the aftermath of the Schism. Even beforehand it was the birthplace of many heresies and theological conflicts. Several of the Byzantine Emperors even were open heretics and used their leverage over the Eastern Churches in Byzantium to swing policy in their favor. On top of that, Byzantium was a political hotbed of assassinations, intrigues, and familial conflict. All appalling to Westerners, with their overall outlook of heeding the words of the Pope on religious matters and their relative political stability thanks to their feudal system.

Painting of St. John Chrysostom confronting Aelia Eudoxia, Empress of Constantinople by Jean-Paul Laurens.

Nevertheless, more than once the Pontiff and the Patriarchs tried working for unity even after the Great Schism. The Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence are the most notable examples of this. However, with the way Orthodoxy is set up, it's very easy for Patriarchs and bishops to form a majority consensus and use their numbers to claim "orthodoxy" and as such go against a specific patriarch on the basis he is guilty of heresy. This is essentially what happened both times with the unions created at these two ecumenical councils: the Patriarchs - with Constantinople usually in the lead - agree to become one again. As the process of uniformity begins, bishops start making trouble and laity start rioting in cities of high Orthodox population. The bishops and other Patriarchs - more than once with Moscow's Patriarch standing in the way, particularly in those talks taking place in the modern day - and as such nothing comes of it. Add all of that together with the Massacre of the Latins and events like the Sicilian Vespers, and most of the Westerners didn't think much of reuniting anyway.

If you don't know about the Vespers or the Massacre, I suggest you do your reading. To date, there's been no direct apology for this from the Greek Patriarch, and most act like one isn't even expected.

It shouldn't come as a surprise, then, that learning the politics taking place between the two groups or the history of the Eastern Orthodox - if you're a Westerner in an area without a lot of them, like myself - is quite the trial of patience. As a historian, I'm not only interested in Catholicism and those nations it is prominent in, but also those whom it had the most long-term interaction with. It's important to get a perspective on both sides of any issue, even if on instinct you're repulsed by the opposition. This is what brought me to ask my Orthodox friends for a good source on Eastern Orthodoxy online, as all the ones I found were either scant or didn't cite themselves, or flat-out contradicted more reliable ones (again with no citations). I was suggested to the Traditional Orthodoxy (Canonical) Facebook group. Now this man in particular - an Imperial, no less - was eager to help answer a few of my questions. Mostly what I was concerned about were two things: what historical justification can the Eastern Orthodox Church make for their stance and practices (i.e. linking them to the Apostles and Pre-Schism Church) and why temporal rulers seemed to have so much of a near-Popish say in the affairs of the Religion. I posted very cordially on the page, as follows:

Greetings, Orthodox! I am a Roman Catholic who was referred to this page as a good source for answers to questions concerning Eastern Orthodoxy. I'm a historian and theologian deletante (going to College for both soon, though) with a primary focus in Roman Catholicism and the history surrounding the West where its influence touches. So the Middle Ages, with a bit in the Roman Empire.

I've got an Eastern Orthodox Friend who is a member of this page who referred me, one Evan Michael LeDoux. There's just a few questions I've got that I figure you all can answer concerning Orthodoxy.

1.) Where is all the history? I know that might seem like an odd, or even offensive question, but it's remarkably difficult to find any sources on the history of the Eastern Orthodox Church that aren't contradicted by other sources or are simply bare bones. This includes information regarding the nations and dynasties attached to them. Orthodoxy, from what I gather, claims they've been doing Christianity the proper way since the beginning and the Roman Catholic Church is doing it incorrectly. But, unlike Roman Catholicism, it seems I can't find a whole lot of historical support.

2.) What's the reasoning behind so much control on the part of temporal monarchs of Orthodox nations having so much say in the affairs of the Church? As an Ultramontane, this has always seemed liked the most puzzling and disturbing thing about Orthodox Christianity. It seems the only time Orthodox Christianity has a clear and visible head-man is when it was the Byzantine Emperor or the Russian Tsar, which seemed to me like a massive conflict of interest and caused more bad than good to be done.

I know these aren't necessarily religious questions, but I feel like before I ever take anyone seriously in regards to religion, their temporal facts need to be in order first. Hope to hear your responses soon!

I didn't want to debate theology, and I made that clear rather early on. I simply wanted answers to the two questions stated. What I got was shocking, to say the least. I've always been told by seasoned clergyman that a debate with an Orthodox will be one of the most intellectually taxing debates of your life, and it requires a wealth of knowledge - to which I will agree, having researched their theological stances and remembering the mountain of information I had to go through.

Not seen: equally mountainous collection of tea cups drained to stay awake and keep the nerves in check.

What shocked me most was the evasiveness. I asked for sources, yes, but rather than get any straight answers from anyone, I was referred book after book after book, even after I said getting books to where I live is difficult. I couldn't even get excerpts; they were incredibly unwilling to give me answers. Rather, my faith was attacked itself and I was accused of having, "already made up my mind." That I was trying to, "ensnare people with my questions." I hadn't spoken a whiff of theology to these Greeks, and they already thought I was somehow trying to by not mentioning it at all. I've recorded the logs from the thread, but It's been taken down, and I don't think it prudent to post the full thing, so I won't. I quite simply became fed up with the accusations. I was called, "an inquisitor" coming around to, "put the schismatics in their place." I was accused of arrogance and a large mess of other things. I was told I needed to, "humble myself when approaching Orthodoxy." They even attacked our page, and even my own personal Facebook. Apparently, they found my Catholic Medieval and Renaissance art distasteful and, "prideful." A, "product of intellectual immaturity" in love with "Fantasy Catholicism."

It is amazing that something as awe-inspiring as Christendom might've actually existed, but it most certainly did.

I decided enough was enough. I had been put to the test, and called out. They weren't just insulting me, but insulting all Catholics and throwing blatant accusations and generalizations left and right. I decided to post a closing rebuttal, but I changed my mind when it came to finally posting it. I decided that there was a larger point to be made which might benefit you, along with my experience.

Ah! The Facebook page. Yes, that's more tongue-in-cheek humor than anything. When I first started the page and other blogs I wrote under the pen-name, "Kaiser Louis-Philip V." A combination of various Catholic monarchs I liked. "KLPV" for short. The NSIR is an actual movement, but anyone who actually thinks I believe myself to be an Emperor needs to try harder to find a reason to question my credibility. Or, perhaps, not try as hard.

Ornamented Coat of Arms of Charles I of Spain, Charles V as Holy Roman Emperor (1530-1556).

I must say I'm incredibly disappointed with my reception. But that's how the Byzantines always looked at their Western "Brethren." Barbarians and heretics. Yes, because Byzantium has room to throw that one around without smacking themselves in the jaw. Oh, wait.

This Anti-Catholicism is surprising! People wonder why I'm so cynical about our attempts to unite the East and the West; why I don't know, when attitudes like these are flying around. You accuse us of, "arrogance." You expect us to bend over backwards and apologize for the Sack of Constantinople, but I've yet to hear -a single peep- concerning the Massacre of the Latins or the Sicilian Vespers. Yes, that happened, and I remember it, and if I had been Pontiff I would've -demanded- apology before I ever considered insulting the memory of Crusaders who were there in a first place to help a Byzantine Emperor get back on the throne to fund a Crusade that was in both their interests, and then got stuck in Constantinople during a coup, and had to fight their way out with some form of payment in tow just to get back home. But Peter has spoken, and unlike Photius, I will not contest it further. But I'm still waiting for an apology concerning the Sicilian Vespers and the Massacre of the Latins.

Sicilian Vespers (1846), by Francesco Hayez

Ha! You act as if I'm going to be hurt by something I'd post publicly on a social networking website! That slaps me on the knee, that does. I am very much in love with my people's history, yes, and no less than I am sure many Orthodox are proud of there own! Holy Mother Russia and all that, right? The same one who's atheistic revolution made the Protestant Revolt look like a minor debate in which some short-tempered monks threw their notes at one another? Yes, quite. For people who consider their faith to be the one road to salvation, you all seemed -highly- uninterested in converting the West. Quite content to let those damned to rot in Hell, hmm? It's a good thing Rome never had such a policy, or we might've never left Italy. The only reason Orthodoxy left the East is because they fled their countries when they turned against them. I don't really like the idea of Europeans leaving their homelands for America. I think all of us - myself included - should've stayed and held out to the bitter end, but that's just me. You know, "chivalry" and all that. Something Byzantium and Russia never quite grasped. Content to raid into the fringes of Eastern Europe until they got smashed by people who actually knew how to fight. Napoleon proved the reason we never tried doing what Russia kept doing - invading the West - was because it was a useless frozen-over hellhole with value only to those stuck there.

Coat of Arms of the Kolchak Government of White Russia

You've hit the nail straight on the head! I wish I was born 600 years ago, living in a time of chivalry and righteousness - or at least a time when it was identifiable. I'm sure no less than many Orthodox (oh, but they're all, "Hyperdox") want to live in the Russian Empire or Novgorod back in the day. I'm not new, but I am indeed a convert. I do love the Medieval Era! Gee, what gave you that idea? Maybe the -massive gallery of Medieval Art-? Again, I'm going to be ashamed for that? As if. If I was going to be ashamed of it, it wouldn't go up in a public setting!

I find it incredibly humorous you assume I'm smug. I'm actually heavily disappointed. I mean heavily, heavily, heavily, -heavily- disappointed. What few Orthodox I've met outside of here were stand-up intellectuals themselves. Honest people who could answer my honest questions honestly, or at least refer me somewhere else - like the good man who referred me here. I do apologize if anything I've said has upset him, but the fact is, so long as I say my Rosary in Latin, I'm not going to sit here and let people diminish the faith. Yes, it's all about, "humility." I guess I should've been all, "humble" when I was corralled into the office of a Protestant Private School and told I was going straight to Hell for being Catholic. I should've been, "humble" when my family collectively shunned me for making a decision based on what prayer and spiritual reading and historical understanding had revealed to me. I should've been, "humble" the numerous times I've stood, alone, for a religious system that has more in common with yours than either of us want to admit, and should've been arm-in-arm all this time, if it hadn't been for Photius. Oh, that's another thing: take Photius off the liturgical calendar as a saint. That pawn of Byzantine Power-Playing never should've been made a Saint.

Photius "The Great."

I'm resistant to your attempts at banter because, frankly, sir, I'm not interested in being challenged on doctrinal or dogmatic points! I'm interested in matters of -history- that -might or might not- have to do with any possible interest in the religion. But even inquiring upon the Easterners is clearly fruitless! Because, -clearly-, Orthodoxy is -absolutely irreproachable- and should be accepted as God's Divine Will without an ounce of information to support that declaration. Even the worst Catholics are not so unreasonable, and if they are, I've often slapped them more often than Greeks.

So there's nothing humble about the West, eh? The Byzantines and Easterners are lecturing the -West- on -how to practice austerity-? You cannot -possibly- be serious. I've come to Constantinople looking for answers to questions, questions it's flatly not interested in answering without making some outrageous agreement that presupposes I'll find what I'm looking for in the first place! Pah! I used to think that the Orthodox Church might try and snatch up Traditionalists disaffected by trends in the Church, or the current Pontificate, but if they're reception has been or will be anything like mine, I can't imagine any with backbone staying for very long!

Teutonic Crusaders v. The Mongol Hordes

If I wanted a debate, I would've come right up and asked for one. If I wanted to put you in your place, I would've done it, like I am now. Unlike the East, the West has a proud tradition of walking right up to you and telling you what they want and how it's going to be. I suppose that's why for years Russia paid the tithes to the Mongols, and waited until they were simpering and weak to finally go at them, but the Teutonic Knights went straight for them. So what if you're outnumbered? So what if you're in a hopeless situation? Fight and die standing like a man! Spur the horses, lances to bear, and on through the enemy squares and into St. Peter's Gates, carried bloody and weary on the shield's of angels, only without his horse from falling from it, for he died in the stirrups like a true knight! That's the kind of man my religion made, sir. They made brave men, and not just warriors! Missionaries who -begged- and -fought- to go to countries where they die as martyrs in droves, and still do! Saints who God supported every day in their war for souls against heretics and devils alike. What have you got to show!? Clearly none! I came here looking for Byzantium's supposed glory, and for the proudest sons of Holy Mother Russia; real Cossacks! But what've I got? A bunch of fork-tongued monks who spit poison.

I don't need you lot for answers. I'll go find my own.

This was, to say the least, an encounter that upset me greatly. Anyone who asks me privately, I will happily send you the thread logs from the page. But it also got me thinking about something important; something that I feel has been overlooked either out of naivete or wishful thinking.

The Catholic Church is a powerful and influential Church. Anyone with a brain could tell you that. Not nearly as much as it was, but it caries a cultural and historical wait in the world that cannot be matched. Its leader alone carries a title used by the Roman Emperors, "Pontifex Maximus." Spiritually speaking, he is the leader of all Christians. I've even heard Protestant ministers tell me there are simply verses of the Bible and entire sections of Christian history they ignore, because to use or acknowledge them might lead to an acceptance of Popery.

The Orthodox Church knows all of this very well. I'm sure as far as many are concerned, the Pope is simply an errant Patriarch who must be brought back into the fold of Orthodoxy and reminded of his place. But even in spite of all this, there is still hope for the future of relations between these two churches.

Patriarch Bartholomew and Pope Benedict. Yes, this picture actually happened, and I'm amazed it isn't more well-known.

I don't doubt the sincerity of the higher-ups and their desire for peace and unity between the two churches. I don't doubt the amount of good that would do; it would be the single greatest act of ecclesiastic politics in a thousand years. The Church would double if not triple in size, and millions of souls who might otherwise be damned would be saved. But as usual, I predict, what will happen is that the subordinates and the laity will cause trouble and refuse the union. This has happened once before in a very dramatic episode, with biblical consequences. I for one would not like a repeat of such an episode, and I'm certain everyone could agree with me on that.

Keeping this in mind, I would like to impart upon you all the lesson I have learned from this situation of mine. That lesson being that while the kings of our opposing nations may be attempting to come to terms for peace and unity, their soldiers and captains are by no means withdrawing their forces. If you've got the stomach for it, I invite all of you to browse any Orthodox Facebook page, group, blog, or forum and simply observe the almost racially-charged hatred for, "Latins." It's disturbing and enough to make any Catholic wary of the trend of worshiping Russia as the future savior of Christendom, and even the most die-hard ecumenist to realize that union of East and West won't be quite as simple as a council or agreement between Pope and Patriarch. It would require serious doubling-down against dissent from both sides on the matter of union, and someone's hands would have to get dirty in the process, most likely.

Blason of the Latin Empire of Contantinople. One of the hopes of the Empire was the possible unity of the East and West. Unfortunately, it barely lasted forty years after its founding.

While we should most certainly, in unity with all the Church, pray for the unity of the Orthodox and Catholic Church, we should not hold our breath. Every soldier fights with the hope for peace in his heart, but when the enemy is sending fire to your position, the last thing a soldier can sanely hope to entertain is that he might save himself or even end a war by not firing back. We as Catholics have a duty to defend our Faith and not concede a single point of it. We must support our Pope with prayer in his attempt to bring the lost sheep of the East back into the fold with the West. But if we are to be taken seriously by those as stringent in their praxis as the Orthodx, we must:

1. Know our own Faith, and its history.
2. Do not be ashamed of our traditions.
3. Live with pious dignity. Most Orthodox women I've met won't even consider wearing pants - especially not to Liturgy - and don't care if they're mistaken for Pentecostals (yes, I've actually heard this excuse). Likewise, the men are impeccable dressers.
4. Do not be ashamed of our history, and always be ready to defend it.
5. Always accept apology and cooperation when it is given or offered.
6. Be mindful of any scandal you might give to the Roman Church that would comfort its enemies.
7. Pray for the conversion of those Orthodox who calumniate the Church. If I can go from the Protestant I was to the Catholic I am now, there's hope for anyone to convert. Most of you would've wanted to lynch me, given the kind of aggressive Protestant I was.
8. Give respect to those Eastern Saints also venerated in our own Church, and use them and their theology to find common ground.
9. Never allow yourself to be "guilted" into apologizing for your own Faith, when - as I've mentioned before - the Sicilian Vespers and the Massacre of the Latins is almost treated like it never happened.
10. Don't be shy about the hard questions or hot-button issues. They have to be addressed at some point. Someone told me once that a good Orthodox clergyman will rebuke you two or three times if you come to him seeking conversion before he'll take you seriously, if you're coming from another Christian schism or Roman Catholicism. If anyone understands the value of being steadfast and stalwart in their beliefs, it's them. That's another thing; "denominations" is moot to them. As far as they're concerned, there's real Christians, and then schismatics, heretics, and apostates. That "Narrow Way" mindset is highly biblical, and it's something else we could benefit from.
11. From true doctrine, never waver.
12. Keep in mind that we both have the same root in terms of our faith. Use that. 

We've got a long way to go before unity is a reality, and we can't give up the fight against those who want one for those who don't. If the Orthodox Church is to be united with our own, it will not be without martyrs - in every sense of the word. But if we remain steadfast in our prayers, and in our beliefs and devotion, we will be victorious, as we always have been.

The Chi-Rho with a wreath symbolizing the victory of the Resurrection, above Roman soldiers, circa  AD 350.

Caesar Alloquitur: The Soul of the Empire

"What does it profit a man, to gain the whole world, but lose his soul?"

"The Crucifixion and Last Judgement" by Jan Van Eyck

There is a crisis and great scandal in the Catholic Church that must be addressed first and foremost if we are to have any progress in the world today. It is something the Roman Pontiff himself has spoken on and oft been misunderstood over. Those Catholics who spend themselves tirelessly in battle against the Forces of Darkness today often lose sight of it in the moment. We have seemingly forgotten or pushed into the foreground that thing for which we were - or should be, if we weren't already - fighting for in the first place: souls.

 

Historical Context

A Teutonic Hochmeister

It was pointed out once to me by an editorial that those who built Christian Civilization were not conscious of the fact they were building a new social order. While you could debate this on technicality and the article itself was simply one of many weak-kneed attempts at calling off the struggle for our Faith, it raised a point: those who built Christian Civilization did so by saving souls. While it might smack of insult and an attack on our culture, the fact is Christ did not say, "Go forth and create a mighty Empire." What he did say was to go forth and make disciples of all nations, and this our Apostolic forefathers did with gusto. Early Christians did not run for positions as senator as a means of changing policy within the Roman Empire. They were perfectly content to serve it and respect it while living a pious lifestyle. Why? Because that was what Christ had asked for them, and that was all he had asked of them. I can feel your sneers and scoffs as I say this, because you think you already know where I'm going with this. Hear me out: early Catholics probably couldn't even conceive the Middle Ages. They weren't planning on social upheaval. Yet, a few hundred years after the death of Christ, Emperor Theodosius proclaimed Christianity the State Religion of the Roman Empire after Emperor Constantine the Great had legalized its practice.

Everyone forgets Theodosius; a shame.

But how on earth did this paradigm shift in the Roman Empire come about without some great social upheaval? It is difficult for us to imagine in the post-Revolution days that a country - let alone conservative Rome - could change itself. Ignoring the fact that Rome only needed to change a few things in the first place, it's actually quite simple to understand. Conversion implies a change in your life: I don't think any of us can sit and say our conversion experience did not drastically change our lives and make us different from the people we were before. Moreover, forced conversion is not something the Catholic Church praises; it must be made of free will.

So, no violent revolution. How on earth did Rome change then? How did Christendom come to be? When the Apostles and missionaries went forth and made disciples of all nations, conversions happened, and these conversions changed people and their outlook on the world. In much the same way we as individuals upon our conversion throw off the old man and put on the new one, whole societies gradually did the same. We can contrast this with Islam, that started violently to establish itself and has fought continuously since its founding to spread its religion by force.

Seen here: Muslims reveling in their tradition of violent overthrow of their non-Muslim neighbors. Meanwhile, somewhere, in a Catholic School classroom, young Catholic children are being taught to be ashamed of the Crusades and all the attempts of Christianity to fight back against these aggressive actions. Just google, "Jihad" in Google Images and watch the reams of pro-Jihad Memes made by Islamic groups show up.

Relevance for the Imperium

It has become far too common among Catholics engaged in the culture war in their fight to preserve the world temporally that they would neglect it spiritually. We are so used to debating those who do not care for the spiritual that we instinctively leave it out of all of our rebuttals and debates. This is a grievous mistake. The whole reason the Church was created, above anything else, was to save souls! It was not created to build empires, crown kings, or be an agent of revolution and change. These were all things the Church did to support its mission to save souls, or happened by the grace of God as a consequence of the conversion of souls.

Holy Roman Emperor Maximillian I with his War Flag of the Holy Roman Empire

I remember seeing a video blog from a renowned atheist talk-show host talking about a man who came up to him with a Bible and spoke to him respectfully. Apparently, the man thought he was a very intelligent and well-intentioned individual, but he possessed a great concern for his soul. So he wanted to offer him a Bible and give him his number, and give him a chance to re-think his decision. He saw the man's damnation as a tragedy, rather than how most of us might see the damnation of our opponents, as a "just deserts" for their opposition to the Truth, when we fail to realize some of us might find ourselves damned for our own personal vices as much as another might be for their disbelief.

Christ and the Christian Soul by Diego Velazquez

How many of us, as traditionalists, often find ourselves despairing when we see the higher virtues discarded in public life (but, really, are you actually surprised at this point)? How many of us scorn our liberal priest and say, "No! I will not attend Mass today. I do not wish to hear heresy spoken from the pulpit anymore!" How often do we neglect our prayers in our frustration? How much do we take out our frustration and anger upon our family members and our friends? How many times do we scandalize ourselves with these apparent vices in our bitter zeal? Do we not sometimes excuse our own vices and sins as an attempt to find catharsis in places other than God' grace? Do not say you do not! I will profess to you openly that I myself do these things. I know, much like I know I cannot be alone in my thirst for righteousness, I cannot be alone in my shortcomings, for we are all human.

My friends, we must be the change we want to see in the world. What would it profit us if, beyond our wildest dreams, God saw fit to hand over to us the entire world to rule and reign as we saw fit? What good would it do, if we should all die eternally in our sins, along with all our subjects? Absolutely nothing! It would be a useless gesture.

We, as Catholics, can never forget our true mission: to lead others to Christ and save their souls. We cannot allow this to get lost in our opponents' focus on the immediate gratification of their desires and a satisfaction of their rebellion against God's will. Ultimately, all secular arguments will fall on deft ears against our secular opponents. We must preach Hell and damnation as a reality, not simply as just, but as a tragedy. It is a tragedy that we find ourselves in a world where there might be any deprived of the Beatific vision, which is why we must try to get as many to it as possible.

At the core of our defiance to the evils and vices and corruption in our world must be this: it damages our souls. It will lead to the acceptance of an action that is sinful, and leads to Hell. This seems a terrible task, but it has been done before! I promise you, Rome and its conservatism and the pagan kingdoms were far more resilient than anything the liberal establishment can throw at us

St. Augustine of Canterbury preaches to Æthelberht of Kent

We must save souls, Imperials. It is the first step to bringing peace and order back to the world. We must bring peace and order to the soul before we can reach the world. So I will encourage you: temper yourselves with prayer and spiritual devotion. Lent is just around the corner; what better time to repent and seek new spiritual guidance? What better time to return to the Cross? I'm certain many of us are in need of a Conversion Experience now, and not just non-Catholics. We must return to our devotion and make the center of our argument the salvation of the souls of others. How can you love men, if you revel secretly in their damnation, and subconsciously see Heaven as a reward for you and all the other Enlightened? Such arrogance is what got us here in the first place, and it must be abolished if we are to go back to the Age of Faith.