predication.net

Christians face two dangers: the temptation to deify earthly things and to make one’s habitual practices divine, as if all of this were to last forever. However, the only eternal beauty is God’s beauty. God himself is the most incredible beauty. The psalm also says so: ‘The heavens talk about the beauty of God’. The problem with humans is that they often bow down to something that is merely a reflection of this beauty, which will disappear one day anyway. Even worse, he serves even more fleeting pleasures.

There are two types of idolatry, into which even the faithful can fall. The first liturgical reading (Wis 13:1–9) and psalm (Ps 19:2–3, 4–5) speak of ‘the beauty of creation’, but they also emphasise the misconduct of those who are unable to see the transcendence behind these beautiful things. This attitude hides ‘idolatry of immanence’. A person who falls into this trap stands before beauty without penetrating what lies behind it, and becomes attached to this idolatry, struck with wonder at the power and energy of these things. They do not consider how much higher their creator is, despite being created by the one who is the beginning and author of beauty. Idolatry is looking at many beautiful things without considering that one day they will pass away. Even twilight has its beauty. We are all in danger of this idolatry — of becoming attached to the beauties of this earth without considering anything beyond it. It is the idolatry of immanence. We believe that things are almost gods and that they will never end. We forget that they are part of something greater. Another kind of idolatry is the customs that harden the heart. In today’s Gospel (Lk 17:26-37).

Jesus describes people in the time of Noah and in the time of Sodom as eating, drinking, marrying, and giving out without caring for others, until the moment of the flood and the moment when fire and brimstone came down from heaven — in other words, until the moment of absolute destruction. Everything becomes a matter of habit — that’s life! We live like this without considering how fleeting this way of life is. This too is idolatry: becoming attached to habits without thinking that they will pass away. The Church reminds us of the purpose of these things. Customs can also be regarded as deities. Idolatry? Life is like that; we carry on! Just as another beauty completes beauty, our habit is completed by eternity and another habit. Well, there’s God.

‘If you persevere, you will keep your life’ (Lk 21:19).

Perseverance in love…

„ ‘How did you get on with the fortune-teller?’ ‘She let me down. I knocked, and she asked who it was.” People have always been interested in the future: horoscopes, reading the stars, crystal balls and palm readings. This is all a natural sign of human curiosity and the desire to take control of our future. Sometimes it borders on superstition. But it’s ironic to believe a fortune-teller when you don’t even know who’s behind the door. Even in the time of Jesus of Nazareth, people were no different, asking: ‘Teacher, when will the world end?’ What signs will accompany it?’ Jesus did not provide them with a date or even an hour. However, in the sayings recorded by Luke, he did confirm the transience of the world: ‘There will come days when not a stone will be left unturned of all that you see…’ (Lk 21:6).

Every evening, the news confirms Jesus’ predictions about hunger, disease, signs in the sky, wars, and persecution. Everything that Jesus said is really happening. It is reasonable and wise to accept that everything is coming to an end. To terminate it would not be very meaningful. Becoming lazy is also irresponsible and unchristian. There is a significant distinction between the Gospel, which discusses the future, and pseudo-prophecies. The Gospel also describes the future, but allows people to draw their own conclusions about it. Pseudo-prophecies themselves guide how to behave and what to do. The Gospel is neither a magic wand to protect against misfortune nor a drug injection to relieve convulsions. An essential aspect of the Gospel is Jesus’s statement: ‘If you persevere, you will preserve your life’ (Lk 21:19). It is as if Jesus is saying that you cannot close your eyes to the cataclysms and problems of the world. However, you can do one thing: perseverance will preserve life.

But what does the term ‘perseverance’ mean? In addition to the endurance of an athlete, student, or researcher, there is also the persistence in doing good. A person exists in proportion to how much they love. If they don’t love, they’re just here (selfish person). Those who like to communicate with others and with God realise their purpose in life and participate in God’s blessings. In the evangelical sense, perseverance consists of projecting our humanity into God’s reality and realising what he wants from us: to remain loving, forgiving, patient, tolerant, and merciful — in other words, to persevere in love. 

General Malcom, who participated in the Gulf War, spoke thoughtfully about the importance of focusing on love. He wrote that it is necessary to love winning more than playing. ‘I’ve never spoken to a war veteran who said they fought because they hated the enemy. I’ve never talked to an athlete who said they won because they hated their opponent. I’ve never met anyone who said they stayed in a happy marriage just because they hate divorce.

We must love winning more than we hate losing. To achieve any goal, you must want it; you must love it. Don’t try to motivate yourself to avoid losing, because you’re going to lose anyway. Love winning and try to reach your goal. Let this desire become your duty — it’s the positive force that will lead you to success if it’s your driving force in life. When you focus on the fear of losing, you will lose. Identify the areas of your life where you have experienced adverse outcomes and consider the number of concerns associated with each. Turn things around completely and aim to win. Take one step towards this every day, and learn to love winning more than hating losing.[2] Anything that helps us love will also help us persevere in doing good. Only then can we experience unity with God and be on the right path. Opposite tendencies are associated with the transience and perishability of the world: not only is there no stone left on stone, but also flesh on flesh, bone by bone. The Gospel encourages us not to try to predict the future, but to live in the present in such a way that our lives will have meaning in the future as well.

It is said that a person who died suddenly saw God approaching him with a briefcase in his hand. ‘My son, the time has come; we must go!’ One asked: ‘Why so soon, Lord? I wanted to do so much more!’ ‘I’m sorry, my son. Your time has come,’ God replied. ‘And what’s in that suitcase?’ ‘Everything that belonged to you, everything that was yours.’ ‘Everything that belonged to me? Are you saying you have my things — my clothes, money and documents — in there?’ ‘I’m sorry,’ said God, ‘but what you mention never belonged to you. They belong to the country.’ ‘Does that mean you have my memories in your suitcase?’ ‘I’m sorry, my son, but they won’t go with you either because they never belonged to you. They belong to time.’

‘So my skills and talents are in the boot?’ ‘They don’t belong to you either. They belong to the circumstances you were in.’ ‘Does that mean my friends and relatives are in there too?’ ‘I’m sorry, son, but people don’t belong to you either. They belong to your life path.’ ‘So my wife and children are there?’ ‘I’m sorry, son, but they don’t belong to you either because they belong to your heart.’ ‘Does that mean my body is in the boot?’ ‘It doesn’t even belong to you because it belongs to dust.’ ‘So is my soul there?’ ‘No, my son. Your soul does not belong to you because it belongs to me.’ 

Desperately, the man snatched the briefcase from God’s hand and opened it. It was empty. With tears in his eyes, he asked God, ‘Does this mean that nothing ever belonged to me? I never owned anything?’ ‘Yes, my son. Every moment you lived belonged to you!’ The only thing that belongs to us is the present moment. Therefore, it is right to experience moments with loved ones and to do good. Jesus sums this up with the words: ‘If you persevere, you will preserve your life’ (Lk 21:19). We do not have to live in fear or sadness over transience, because the Lord walks with us on our journey through life.

13 November
Commemoration
Position: martyr
Death: 1944
Biography:

He was born on 9th November. January 1894 in Göfis, near Feldkirch in Vorarlberg, Austria, the seventh child of peasants František Xavier and Maria Lampert Rosin. During his time at Feldkirch High School, his father passed away. Thanks to the support of his uncle, he continued his studies at the seminary in Brixen from 1914. Bishop Fr. Egger ordained him on 12th May 1918. He received priestly ordination on 5 May 1918. He subsequently performed pastoral ministry in Dornbirn for twelve years. Bishop Sigismund Waitz then sent him to Rome to study canon law. After completing his studies in 1935, he was admitted to the Rota Romana (a tribunal of the Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature). With his law degree, he was also appointed Monsignor. In the autumn of that year, he was called back to Austria. At Bishop Waitz’s request, Dr. Carl Lampert was appointed head of the ecclesiastical court in the Apostolic Administration of Feldkirch. The following year, he also began working as a chaplain at the seminary in Innsbruck, as well as assuming the role of head of the Catholic publishing house Tyrol.
Bishop Pavel Rusch ordained him in Innsbruck on the 15^(th). On 1 January 1939, he was appointed Vicar General (Pro-Vicar and Apostolic Administrator of the territory of Innsbruck-Feldkirch).

In this role, he frequently came into conflict with the Nazi regime, as represented by Gauleiter Franz Hofer, the head of the Gestapo in Innsbruck. During Easter week in 1940, Dr Lampert was instructed by the Vatican to broadcast news of the tense situation in Tyrol via Vatican Radio. He was subsequently arrested and spent two weeks in custody. In May, he had another conflict due to the torture of the priest O. Neururer, whose trial he had tried to stop the previous year. (He was martyred on 30 May 1996.) Dr Lampert published an obituary in the church newspaper indicating where Neururer had died. The Nazis arrested him again on 5 May for violating confidentiality rules. 7. 1940. He was deported to Dachau on the 25th. 8th 1940 and from there 1. September, he was transferred to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp near Berlin. There, he was assigned to the disciplinary unit and subjected to forced labour. After three months, on the 15th of the month, On 12 September, he was transferred back to Dachau, where he remained in prison for eight months. On August 1, 1941, Dr. Carl Lampert was released and sent into exile in Pomerania. He moved on the 16th. On 8 August 1941, he moved to Szczecin, where he worked as a parish priest in Carolusstift. Little did he know that the deeply religious engineer Hagen, who was actually a Waffen-SS spy named Pissaritsch, had been assigned to him. Unable to obtain evidence that Fr Carl Lampert had spoken out against the regime, the authorities invented a story about an upcoming conspiracy to justify a larger wave of arrests. It started on 4th February 1943. Dr Carl Lampert was accused of high treason, espionage, undermining military morale, and aiding the enemy. He was subjected to intense interrogation and torture in the following months. He was convicted at his trial on the 20th of the month. 12. 1943, but was repeated on 8th December for specific reasons. 9. 1944, after which he was executed by guillotine in Halle (Saale) on 11th September. November 1944, when Carl Lampert was executed by guillotine in Halle (Saale).

He was beatified on 13. In November 2011, when Pope Benedict XVI recalled the words of Karl Lampert during one of his interrogations: ‘I love my church. I remained faithful to my church and my priesthood. I am on the side of Christ, and I love my Church.’

In today’s post, we will take a closer look at the last period of St. Josaphat’s life, which he lived as an archbishop and a kind shepherd entrusted to him by the people. He was consecrated bishop on Sunday, November 12, 1617, in Vilnius. His consecrator was the Metropolitan of Kyiv Josef Rutský, with whom Jehoshaphat formed an essential pair for the metro pole of the time – we could say that they were something like Cyril and Methodius for our regions. While Metropolitan Rutsky put the impoverished and neglected Kyiv metro pole on its feet in terms of organization, Jehoshaphat was its driving force in terms of spirituality. The city of Polock in today’s Belarus became its new seat.

As the new Polish archbishop, Jehoshaphat did not move away from his pasture. His new status did not change his monastic way of life. He continued to dress like a monk and inhabited a modest cell. It must be said that Jehoshaphat was consecrated bishop as a coadjutor, that is, as a bishop with the right of succession. The Polish department was not vacant, but its bishop was already a 90-year-old Gideon Broľnický, a weak and indecisive person, and lacked the necessary education. Because he had counselors around him with not the best of intentions, he welcomed his new assistant, Bishop Josaphat, coldly. However, Jehoshaphat’s modesty and humility helped to break Bishop Gideon’s mistrust, so that their relationship soon evolved into a father-son relationship. The infirm Bishop Gideon, provided with the sacraments, died in Jehoshaphat’s care after a short time.

As a resident bishop, Josaphat now gave himself to work and proved to be a good administrator of the estates. He managed to restore the Cathedral of Divine Wisdom and return the monasteries to the church that had been in the hands of secular persons. Above all, he became an ardent preacher of church unity. Three years after his episcopal ordination, the Orthodox, ununified hierarchy was also restored on the territory of the Kyiv metropolis. In practically every city where a Greek Catholic bishop resided, one more non-unified bishop was appointed. Thus, a parallel hierarchy was created that divided the population, fostering animosity, quarrels, and rifts between the clergy and the people.

For the ununited, the most outstanding herald and defender of Orthodoxy was Bishop Meletij Smotrický, an educated person, an ascetic, but above all a great opponent of Josaphat, who wrote several works and pamphlets against the union. Passwords such as: „End of union! An end to Latin and Jesuit violence! The united bishops are hiding and want to switch to the Latin Rite! Soul Jehoshaphat, who is hiding in Warsaw, is already celebrating the Latin mass; they saw him!“ Jehoshaphat was indeed in Warsaw at that time, but to help Metropolitan Rutsky.

When he returned to his residence, he found that the people and the clergy were sharing among themselves. Ununited monks used townspeople, town halls, and residents for their anti-Union goals. Threats could be heard more and more often against Josaphat. The situation worsened every day. Plans were made to get rid of Josaphat for good. But Jehoshaphat was not afraid. He, too, began to devise plans to combat human malice and defend the union. He often spoke publicly and devoted his sermons to the issue of union. It was by celebrating the liturgy that he proved consistent loyalty to the Byzantine rite in its purity. He also visited his friends and acquaintances, encouraging them in their loyalty to the church. However, he also spoke to his opponents, always in a kind and mild manner.

As an example of Josaphat’s approach to the non-united, we can quote the Polish city councilor Ivan Chodyk, who was Orthodox and united with the Catholic Church only after Josaphat’s death. He himself confessed as follows: „I can say for sure that nothing mattered to Josaphat as archbishop as much as bringing us to unity, while he conversed with us patiently and kindly. He invited us over for lunch and kept repeating the same thing over and over. Once he grabbed my hand and didn’t want to let me leave the temple, but he eventually encouraged me to leave the discord.

He loved the ununited and tried to bring them to unity; he did not hate us or persecute us. Only he did not accept the union that God himself gave to his will. I cannot reproach Josaphat for any aggressive behavior towards us, or for causing us any wrong or providing us with a reason to hate him.“ However, the Lord allowed the malice of the opponents of the union to increase more and more. Josaphat’s enemies carried out several failed assassinations to eliminate him. It was only a matter of time before it would succeed.

Today we celebrate the canonization of „one of the greatest pontiffs who ever sat on the Roman see (…). His pontificate (v 5th century) lasted more than 21 years and was undoubtedly one of the most important in the history of the church,“ was uttered by Benedict XVI. In addition to various peaceful actions, such as defending Rome against barbarian raids, the pontiff Saint Leo the Great stood out by delivering a defense of the two natures of Jesus Christ—human and divine — at the Council of Chalcedon (451). At the time, the council fathers praised him by saying, „Peter spoke through the mouth of Lev.“

Today’s gospel is telling. The question of Jesus Christ on his own identity shows the Master’s pedagogical refinement. He wants to bring his disciples to a truth far removed from human views, comparing Jesus of Nazareth to one of the greats of Judaism. In accordance with his impulsive nature, Peter quickly answers the question: „You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.“ Simon does not speak of Jesus as a great man; that would mean he says very little and does not tell the truth. He assures the divine position of the Man he follows. And Jesus confirms it to him and, at the same time, explains to him that his answer goes beyond his human abilities: it comes from above!

In the same way, as his disciples, the same question comes to us: „And who do you think I am?“ (Mt 16,15) Pope Leo the Great said that Peter’s confession of faith is the rock on which the church rests. Likewise, without help from above, we could not simply be disciples of Christ. Jesus is undoubtedly a wonderful person, a spiritual guide, a prophetic voice… but to become his disciples, one must „believe” in him. Only then is it possible to become a disciple, based on faith. Peter and I confess the faith in Jesus because, as Pope Francis says, „He loves you, He gave his life to save you, and now he lives by your side every day, to enlighten you, strengthen and free you“.

In classical political thought, the concept of a tyrant is used (simplified) to refer to an autocrat who has betrayed his monarchical mission to manage the state and lead it towards the common good. Contrary to this mission, however, the tyrant oppresses the state’s residents and asserts his personal desires contrary to the general good, using violence whether brutal or less cruel. However, the defining feature of tyranny is not violence, which is legitimate in the interest of the public in every form of government, but rather the focus on purely personal gain at the expense of the general welfare, and the use of violence precisely for personal gain. (Of course, it should be noted that, in ancient times, the term ‘tyrant’ was not always perceived negatively, either theoretically or practically.)

Therefore, a tyrant is not a monarch who suppresses a bloody and decaying revolution by equally bloody means to preserve the communal good; rather, it is a ruler who uses similar means to satisfy their own selfish desires and gain personal profit at the expense of the general welfare. Similarly, according to this definition, a representative of a secular totalitarian regime based on a particular ideology should not be called a tyrant. He does not have to act for his own personal gain, and he may, of course, have the impression that he is working for the common good since he is an unbeliever. His removal usually has no effect because the secular ideology of gratitude to its metaphysical background endures, even after the death of the leading official.

For a Christian, an anti-Christian secular regime (or any anti-Christian mode) is basically a tyrannical system. In this case, the classic division into monarchy, aristocracy, and politea loses its meaning, because it is irrelevant whether Christians will be persecuted by an autocrat, an elite, or elected people’s representatives. The problem lies outside the political system. For a Christian, any form of suppression of Christianity is automatically tyrannical.

All scholastic thinkers assume a political situation within the Christian state. A monarch who strives to suppress Christianity or harm the natural good of the Christian state is seen as a tyrant who has abused his position. However, a global non-Christian or anti-Christian regime or state (e.g. Islamic or pagan) is generally perceived as unacceptable. Essentially, their vision of the state can be described as a dichotomy: Christian states versus missionary states (non-Christian states that consciously or unconsciously prevent people from knowing the Gospel).

This vision of reality is found in St. Augustine’s concept of two states: the spiritual and the secular. Whether they want to or not, all orthodox Christian concepts of politics must appeal to St. Augustine, unless they serve some modern-day ideology. The notion of a pluralistic, multi-religious state would have seemed absurd to the scholastics. The political conceptions of St Thomas Aquinas and John of Salisbury are only feasible within a Christian state that participates in Civitas Dei.

Whether an individual in a Christian state or a general in an anti-Christian state, tyranny is undoubtedly perceived as evil. Christian thinkers have questioned how Christians should respond to this evil. A fundamental problem for Christians is whether a tyrant can be removed by force, i.e., by killing them, either collectively or individually. Some Christian thinkers rejected such a practice (Tertullian and Lactations), while others did not exclude it (St. Augustine), but neither group dealt with the issue in much detail.

John of Salisbury (1115–1180)

Was the first scholastic to deal with the problem of the tyrant in detail in his writing Polycrates. He was an English priest and later bishop of Chartres, as well as a diplomat and secretary to St Thomas Becket. As a direct participant in Thomas Becket’s dispute with King Henry II. Plantagenet, who initiated the murder of St Thomas Becket, had ample incentive to think about tyrants. The result was the work above.

John determined that the fundamental difference between a monarch and a tyrant is that the former obeys the law, while the latter does not. However, we must also consider that the monarchical system assumes the possibility of a monarch creating statutes, not just complying with them. This means that he can pass a law against natural law, observe it, and still be tyrannical. Therefore, it is perhaps better to stick to the definition of a tyrant as someone who acts against the general welfare, as the criterion of compliance with the law is not authoritative.

Moreover, laws can be anti-Christian, as we know today. Therefore, their observance by the ruler will not necessarily be beneficial for a Christian state. This confirms the assumption that the scholastics did not consider systems or laws other than those based on Christian principles. By ‘general welfare’, they understood a state of public affairs that corresponded to Church teaching within the framework of a Christian state, rather than primarily to some natural and material goods. The first Christians who perceived emperors such as Diocletian as tyrants can serve as an example. They achieved success in economic, organisational, and military terms, supporting the general well-being in the pagan sense. They were tyrants to the Christians because they persecuted them.

Emperor Nero and the execution of Christians, with Rome burning in the background. Image source: Wikimedia Commons
John of Salisbury writes about the qualities of a good Christian monarch:

The monarch is a servant of the Church and a helper of the priestly status, performing those duties that are not fit for consecrated hands. ‘The monarch receives the sword from the Church.’
The monarch is subject to the law of justice.
The monarch should be morally blameless and must not be greedy.
The monarch must be pious and educated.
The monarch must be humble.
The monarch must never think of himself, but of others.
A monarch who lacks these qualities opposes the laws of God and the world, and may be considered a tyrant. John distinguishes between two types of tyrant: the tyrant-ruler and the tyrant-usurper. The former came to power through legitimate means, while the latter did so through illegitimate means. In the second case: ‘It is not only permissible to kill a tyrant, but also just and right. Whoever usurps power belittles the law and subjects it to his will. The situation with the legitimate monarch is more complicated, but John of Salisbury does not consider this to be an obstacle. He agrees that it is permissible to kill a legitimate monarch, and even considers it a ‘blessed’ act. He only adds that an oath against the tyrant should not bind the perpetrator and, if the tyrant is a priest, he must be suspended before execution. He supports his arguments with examples from the Old Testament and adds: ‘Tyranny is therefore not only a public crime, but something more. The tyrant, this embodiment of perversion, is undoubtedly to be killed in most cases.’

However, John of Salisbury’s radical approach was not widely understood. In the following centuries, especially when queens became more common, the horrified Church officially rejected this theory, and the attitude of St. Thomas Aquinas remained prevalent.

St. John’s attitude. However, Thomas is not clear. In theory, he admits to the removal of a tyrant, but makes several reservations. He fundamentally rejects individual action by ordinary people in this regard. He reserves the right to execute the tyrant for a legitimate authority, specifically a lower branch such as the monarch’s family, successors, the council of ministers, or another body involved in state administration.

St. Thomas Aquinas left us with several instructions for resolving this situation in his theological and philosophical works, as well as in works directly addressing forms and methods of governance, such as ‘De regimine principum’. It seems that, over time, St. Thomas abandoned more radical positions on this issue and leaned towards moderation.

In his comments on Peter Lombard’s statements, he asks himself the question: ‘Are Christians supposed to obey worldly power, especially tyrants?’ Here, however, St. Thomas does not cite the answer as his own, but invokes Cicero: ‘Cicero talks about the case when someone appropriates power by force, against the will of the subjects, or by forcing their consent, and when there is no possibility of turning to a superior power that could judge the usurper.’ Then, he who kills a tyrant to rid his country of the yoke is praised and rewarded.’

Despite this potentially positive opinion, there is a difference with John of Salisbury: St. Thomas only discusses a tyrannical usurper who seizes power by force. When considering the removal of a legitimate ruler who has become a tyrant, St. Thomas cites the first Christian martyrs and their relationship with the emperor as an example to follow: they submitted and did not rebel.

7 November, commemoration
Position: Archbishop
Death: 739
Patronage: Netherlands, Luxembourg; dioceses of Utrecht, Haarlem, and Echternach. Invoked for convulsions, epilepsy, and skin diseases.
Attributes: bishop’s staff, child, book, church model, barrel, and spring. Occasionally depicted with idols.
Biography:

He was raised in a Benedictine monastery in Ripon, England, under Abbot Wilfrid. He became a monk at the age of 15, travelled to Ireland at 20, and was ordained as a priest at 30. Furthermore, he then went on a missionary journey to Friesland. In 695, he became the Archbishop of Utrecht. He founded the Echternach monastery and built temples, proving himself as a missionary in Holland, Luxembourg, Denmark, the Rhineland, Thuringia, and the island of Heligoland. He died in Echternach, in eastern Luxembourg.
BIOGRAPHY FOR MEDITATION

HAPPY IN GOD’S NAME
He was born on the 6th. November 11 658 in Northumbria, on the border of England and Scotland. His father, Williams, was an Anglo-Saxon nobleman who became a monk after his wife’s death and later lived as a hermit. He also sent his seven-year-old son to a Benedictine monastery in Ripon, in the English county of North Yorkshire, to be brought up and educated. Here, Wilibrord was in the care of Abbot Wilfrid (d. 24 April), who was later appointed Bishop of York.

At the age of 15, Wilibrord took religious vows and donned a Benedictine robe. Five years later, he left for the Rathmelsigi monastery in the kingdom of Connaught in the northwest or west of Ireland, having become embroiled in a dispute about Iroscot customs. This allowed him to avoid church-political disputes and meet his Anglo-Saxon compatriots, Egbert and Wilbert. It was here that he began planning missionary work with the Frisians, receiving priestly ordination in 688.

The following year, Pippin II defeated the pagan Frisian king Radbod, and the Frankish Empire gained control of southern Friesland, a province in the north of the Netherlands. In 690, Wilibrord arrived in this territory with eleven companions and began spreading Christianity in Antwerp with the consent of Pippin the Butler. Evangelising the population was difficult and slow in these circumstances. Part of the territory was under the influence of Radbod, who tried to maintain pagan cults and combat Christianity. At Pippin’s suggestion, Wilibrord went to Rome for the second time in 695, where he was consecrated Archbishop of Utrecht on 21 November by Pope Sergius I, who also gave him the new name Clement (meaning ‘benevolent’, ‘kind’, ‘gentle’, ‘mild’). However, Wilibrord preferred his original name.

He returned to Utrecht with a pallium, relics, liturgical books, and clothing. With papal authorisation and the support of the nobility, he began establishing temples. After restoring the damaged church of St. Martina, he built a cathedral dedicated to the Holy Saviour. In Echternach, near Trier, he founded an abbey to educate Frisian heralds. He stayed here from 697 to 698. Thanks to him, the monastery of Susteren, near Maastricht, became another centre for spreading the gospel. He extended his missionary work to Luxembourg and Danish territory. He travelled and preached personally along the Rhine, reaching Denmark. His courage won over many pagans; he did not hesitate to eat from dishes intended for deities, thereby demonstrating their powerlessness.

After Pippin II died in 714, Duke Radbod defied Franconian rule, which had unfortunate consequences for Willibrord’s work. Willibrord was only able to continue his work in Friesland after Radbod’s death. 719. During this period, he worked alongside Boniface for approximately three years, blending the Anglo-Saxon and Roman Catholic traditions and serving as a missionary in Hesse and Thuringia. At around the age of 70, Willibrord is said to have written a summary of his tenure: ‘In Dei nomine feliciter’ (‘happily in God’s name’). Around this time, he was involved in the establishment of the Murbach monastery in Alsace, located in a valley at the foot of the Grand Balloon in the French Vosges mountains.

After fifty years of missionary efforts, Willibrord died in Echternach at the age of 81. In 1031, his remains were collected and placed in a white marble sarcophagus in the crypt under the main altar of the monastery temple.

RESOLUTION, PRAYER

I will seek the happiness that comes from a life anchored in God and in service to His kingdom. I will begin with a prayer in which I entrust my life to God’s guidance.
Merciful God, you called St Willibrord to proclaim the indescribable riches of your love to those who had not yet known Christ. Grant that our knowledge of you may continue to grow, and let us bear the fruit of good deeds. We ask this through your Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, now and forever.

Our ancestors held Saint Leonard in high regard. He was a wise mountain man and cheerful hermit from the sixth century who was “raised” by Saint Benedict. They called him Linhart. Although he was French, he is buried in Inchenhofen, Bavaria, which was the fourth-largest pilgrimage site after Rome, Jerusalem, and Santiago de Compostela for centuries. Several chains crafted by the saint can also be found there. Saint Leonard frees us from the snares of our foolishness and bad habits. This saint also demonstrates the excellent attitude of a child of God, someone who lies down in the grass, enjoys the scent of blooming meadows, and understands the importance of freedom — freedom that the chains of today’s world, including advertising, can never take away.

Examining Leonard makes us realize the importance of animals and ecological issues in human life.Our ancestors held Saint Leonard in high regard. He was a wise mountain man and cheerful hermit from the sixth century who was “raised” by Saint Benedict. They called him Lin Hart. Although he was French, he is buried in Inchenhofen, Bavaria, which was one of the four largest pilgrimage sites in Europe after Rome, Jerusalem, and Santiago de Compostela for centuries. Several chains crafted by the saint can also be found there. Saint Leonard frees us from the snares of our foolishness and bad habits. This saint also demonstrates the excellent attitude of a child of God, someone who lies down in the grass, enjoys the scent of blooming meadows, and understands the importance of freedom — freedom that the chains of today’s advertising world can never take away. Examining Leonard makes us realize the importance of animals and ecological issues in human life. From the royal court to the forest…

In which area did Leo XIV correct Pope Francis’ decision?
What communication channel is the Pope creating with the media,
and what impression did the new bishop Pavol Šajgalík make?
Pope Leo XIV has already made a series of his first serious decisions, correcting his predecessor in one matter. In Slovakia, the Church was busy with the episcopal ordination of the new bishop of the ordinary, Pavol Šajgalík, as well as with legislative proposals concerning church and private schools. 

These and other topics were discussed in Vatican Seven, which resumed its video format after a month.

The Pope’s horse. Although in television news, the so-called “animal at the end” usually appears at the end of the news block, in our case, we devoted it to the beginning. It is a white Arabian stallion named Proton, which Pope Leo XIV received as a gift from a Polish breeder.

“It may have been a bizarre event from our point of view, but it caught the attention of Catholic internet users around the world. It was really very nice to see the Pope leading him by the reins,” who recalled that after the conclave, photos of missionary Robert Prevost sitting on a horse in the Peruvian mountains had already been circulated.

The deputy editor-in-chief of the daily Post added that horses were once essentially the papal Popemobile. “Pope Pius IX, for example, was a passionate rider in the 19th century. Simply put, popes and horses somehow go together. So we’ll see if, in addition to tennis, the pope will have a new hobby in Castel Gandolfo, namely riding Proton,” 

If we could describe the first months of Leo’s pontificate as a cautious trot, the last month looked like a brisk gallop.

Just look at the events surrounding the new pope’s first serious steps. 

The first significant document, the Apostolic Exhortation Dilexi Te (I Have Loved You), was published. The first crucial episcopal appointment concerns Vienna, where the Pope has appointed Josef Grünwidl, who has served as the apostolic administrator of the Archdiocese of Vienna for the past few months, as Cardinal Schönborn’s successor.

The Pope also had his first meeting with victims of abuse, and his first foreign apostolic journey was announced, which will take him to Turkey and Lebanon at the end of November. At the same time, we saw the Pope’s first apostolic visit to the Apennines Peninsula, accompanied by Italian President Sergio Mattarella. And we could go on.

Francis’s first correction. In addition to the events mentioned above, there were at least two that deserve special attention. The first is the fact that Leo XIV corrected his predecessor, Pope Francis. “This is a specific matter of an economic nature,”

During the reform of the Roman Curia, Pope Francis decided that all investment activities should be the responsibility of the Institute for Religious Works, also known as the Vatican Bank. Leo XIV has now overturned this decision with the issuance of the motu proprio Coniuncta cura on the investment activities of the Holy See, and he has decided that responsibility in this area should be shared. 

“In other words, the Vatican Bank will no longer have a privileged position in investments, but several Vatican offices will decide on investments. Simply put, responsibility will be spread more widely and will be shared.” 

The Durbin case. The second event resonated particularly in the United States, as the American pope unexpectedly entered into a sensitive controversy that was being debated in the US church.

Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich decided to award Chicago Democratic Senator Dick Durbin a prize for his life’s work, especially for his contribution to the care of migrants, which was met with intense criticism not only from some lay people and priests, but also from some American bishops, who pointed out that Durbin is a well-known pro-choice politician, i.e., he supports abortion. 

Journalists asked the Pope about this case, and he pointed out that it is necessary to consider not only the issue of abortion, but also the senator’s entire life context, as he helps migrants and thus also protects human life, and is also against the death penalty. 

Among the critical reactions to the Pope’s statement was that there is a hierarchy of truths in the sense that defenseless children in their mother’s womb cannot defend themselves and must be protected, simply because they are the most vulnerable. “So you could see what a controversy erupted around the Pope’s statement,”

“Ex Gandolfo.” The Pope’s statement on the American case took place during a format that was unfamiliar to us under Pope Francis. Since the beginning of September, Pope Francis has been spending Tuesdays at the papal residence in Castel Gandolfo, returning to the Vatican on Tuesday evenings. A group of television reporters awaits him in front of Villa Barbering, asking him questions mostly about current events.

“It is possible that the Pope was looking for a way to stay in touch with journalists. We will see if the tradition of statements on board the plane will continue, as he will not be going on his first foreign trip until the end of November,” , who recalled that this type of statement was also called “ex aereo” under Francis, meaning from the air, from the plane. These were the Pope’s answers, which also made the headlines in the media. “I took the liberty of playing with words a little and saying that in the case of Leo XIV, we are seeing something like ‘ex Gandolfo’ for now.”

Film highlight. In Vatican Seven, you will also learn why the series Task on the MAX platform (formerly HBO) about a motorcycle gang intrigued you and how spiritual life is related to the main character of the series—the head of the FBI unit, played by the well-known actor Mark Ruffalo.