Dear brothers and sisters! Nowadays, healthy eating and a healthy lifestyle are frequently discussed and written about. Everyone wants to be healthy. Therefore, let’s not be surprised when it spreads from time to time, either through advertisements or through folk healers, that some medicines are excellent for some diseases. Everyone wants to have it. And you may remember how a few years ago there was a lot of talk about a dairy preparation called “kefir “, then bee porridge, or the miraculous root “žň-šeň “, about a cactus preparation, about acupuncture, or the Japanese bracelet. We would like to have a medicine that would protect us from all diseases.

But just as we are exposed to physical diseases, we also suffer from character ailments. It is the vices of character that shape and deform us, causing us considerable suffering in our daily lives. Sometimes these mental defects are more unpleasant than physical illnesses. What is the cause of this suffering? It is pride and egoism that manifests itself as disordered self-love. She is the chief cause, the root of all sins, and all wits of inexplicable misery. It also has other consequences, so numerous that no psychologist has yet compiled a complete list of them.  Lord Jesus therefore advises us in this situation. “Whoever seeks his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for me will find it “(Mt 10, 39.

For a clearer understanding of this seemingly contradictory statement by Christ, let’s use an image. Let’s imagine a large circle with a clock dial displaying the numbers 3, 6, 9, and 12. Let’s stand in our minds at the place where there is a six. We place the neighbor on three and Jesus Christ on the most significant number, twelve. Let’s reread Jesus’ statement: “whoever seeks his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for me will find it. “For God’s sake, we can lose our lives by serving our neighbor, gradually, slowly, drop by drop, or violently, all at once – by martyrdom. For we move through three to twelve according to the words of Jesus: “Whatever you did to one of my least brothers, you did to me. “Nevertheless, our Lord, as God, needs nothing from us for his happiness, wealth, and glory. That is why it preserves and transforms all those values for us into ones that neither rust nor moth spoils.  

So we get them back through nine, and that’s eternal life. Whoever does not move everything that is apart from himself to God through his neighbor will lose everything one day. We cannot move things directly to God – from the left side through the nine. Jesus said: “What you did not do to one of my youngest brothers, nor did you do to me. Leave, I don’t know you! We realize this especially in this soulful time, how many people we would like to be with, and they are no longer here. They left us so quickly. One man said on his deathbed: Everything I have, everything I own is utterly useless to me now. In fact, I only have what I’ve given away in my life. Dear brothers and sisters, let’s turn temporality into eternity.

Before our eyes stands today the image of St. Elizabeth of Thuringia, who primarily understood the truth of this life and became a mighty conqueror of solitary love. She really gave away everything she owned to people experiencing poverty. She was led to this by a great passion for God through her neighbors.

Just as a house or a tall tower needs a deep foundation, love is built on humility. Just as John the Baptist prepared the way for the Lord Jesus, so humility prepares the way for love. Without humility, there is no love. From this, we see that Saint Elizabeth built her spiritual life on the foundation of humility. Humility is like a thread that unites all other virtues. Modesty has always been a source of incredible beauty and happiness among people. The Holy Scriptures confirm this for us, because “God opposes the proud, but gives his grace to the humble. This further reveals to us that she really chose a life of grace, a life of light, and therefore true wisdom, to see and know how to navigate the challenging and intricate events of her life. Lord Jesus said: “Whoever is greater among you, let him be your servant “. The apostle Paul wrote about it: “He humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, namely to death on the cross. “He did it to draw us to himself.

Henry Neuwen put it in an excellent idea. “Whenever I am willing to overcome my false need for self-sufficiency and dare to ask for help, a new community arises – a community of the weak, which is strong in trust, that together we can be people of hope for this wounded svet “. The opposite of what we said is pride – it is the desire for superiority – to show our beauty, grandeur, wealth, and power. It is an excessive admiration of oneself.

In the final stage of this deadly disease, a person creates a law for himself; he becomes his own morality, a judge to himself, and ultimately a god. After all, this is what the evil spirit promised Eve in the beginning: “you will be like gods “. Man plays God. He sets his will against God’s will. However, we naturally do not value the rights of others, as we are primarily concerned with our own advantages and do not tolerate opinions that contradict our own. Today’s times have nice cover names for pride, such as success or self-confidence. Parents also often try to provide their children with less life happiness than success and a career. Charlatans in the field of psychology encourage us to trust ourselves instead of trusting God.

Therefore, the egoist criticizes, gossips, slanders, uses sharp words, and spoils the good reputation of his neighbor to highlight himself. Nevertheless, the paradoxical truth is confirmed that a proud person basically hates himself. This is because he himself feels in his subconscious that he is not as perfect as he pretends to be. And that evokes a complex in him. To cover up worries and anxieties, he appears harsh and even cynical. In this situation, a proud person has the opportunity to choose two paths of hatred: 1. or he begins to hate vanity, conceitedness, self-celebration, which harm his soul, and that is the path of purification, liberation, and finally healing. 2. Or he hates everything about himself that hinders his pride and perfectionism, so that he can feel like God, and that is the way to self-destruction. It is a clear foretaste of hell on earth. Such a person remains alone – he cannot be a gift to others. Our mighty soliloquy slayer, Saint Elizabeth, will undoubtedly stand out better today from this black thinking.

Saint Elizabeth of Hungary-Thuringia was the daughter of the Hungarian king Andrew II. and his wife Gertrude, originally from Bavaria. Already at the age of one, she was engaged to the Thuringian land count Ľudovít IV, who was eight years old at the time, for political reasons. However, they kept the little fiancée at their parents’ royal court until the fourth year, from where she was transferred to her fiancé’s residence in 1211, to Wartburg Castle in Thuringia. Although Mother Gertrude, the Hungarian queen, had a hard time saying goodbye to her little daughter, in the end, the queen won over her mother.

She was very ambitious and longing for property. After the messengers of the Thuringian prince who came for Elizabeth, she said: “Tell your master that I wish him well-being and pleasure and that he does not despise the little. If God allows me to live, I will multiply the dowry richly, I definitely promise that”. Her father, Ondrej II, was also a power-hungry person, which was reflected in his wrongful attempt to obtain the royal crown belonging to his brother, Imrich. Although his father, Belo III, had tried to compensate him for this damage with a large amount of property. Well, that wasn’t enough for him. He attacked his own brother with the army he was supposed to use for the crusade. Despite the loss, because his brother almost died, he became the Hungarian king.

As soon as Elizabeth reached the age of 14, she married Ľudovít. The young couple understood each other well and lived happily. They had three children: Hermann, Sofia, and Gertrude, who became a religious and is venerated as blessed. Elizabeth lived in a happy marriage. The Thuringian princely court was known for its love of luxury and had a long-standing dispute with the ecclesiastical authorities, particularly with the Archbishop of Mainz. Ľudovít inherited from his father not only the throne but also the curse that the archbishop of Mainz had imposed on him, and it did not lift it from him until his death. Although he was innocent, access to the sacraments became impossible for him. His first concern was to rid himself of the curse, which he ultimately succeeded in doing. This whole atmosphere reflected Elizabeth’s way of thinking and way of life. She was a devout Christian, devoted to the Church, and lived.

She enjoyed the princely property, but not for herself, but for the poor and sick. She was generous enough to spend huge sums on alms, establishing hospitals and shelters for abandoned children, especially orphans. The count’s relatives took a dim view of Elizabeth’s actions, but her husband, Ľudovít, respected her, sincerely loved her, and did not hinder her in her way of life or her charitable endeavors. It didn’t take long. In July 1227, after a six-year marriage, her husband died of plague in southern Italy during a crusade. At that time, Elizabeth was waiting for the birth of her daughter Gertrude. After her birth, her husband’s relatives began to pressure Elizabeth. They took her children, refused to recognize her inheritance rights, and expelled her from Wartburg. Elizabeth went from a princess to a beggar. Fortunately, she was taken in by an abbess and a kinship bishop, as well as her last confessor, the well-known preacher Konrad of Marburg.

Konrad recovered specific property and money from her inheritance. However, she dedicated herself to building a hospital in Marburg, where she then personally served the sick. In 1228, she settled in Marburg, where she was spiritually guided by her confessor Konrad, whom she had known since. 1225. Elizabeth loved helping the sick, poor, and elderly by building shelters and working in a hospital near her modest home. She refused an offer to return to Hungary. She preferred to live the rest of her life in exile. She engaged in menial tasks such as spinning and carding yarn, cleaning the dwellings of low-income individuals, and fishing for leisure. Her new life regime lasted only two or three years.

Let’s see how her spiritual leader, P., expressed himself about her. Konrád: “Elizabeth immediately excelled in virtues. Because she had been the comforter of people with low incomes throughout her life, she began to be the full breadwinner of the hungry. At one of her castles, she had a shelter built and collected many sick and weak people in it. She generously distributed the blessing of love. And not only there, but in the entire territory that belonged to her husband’s authority. She had exhausted all her income from her husband’s four principalities, so she had sold all her garments and valuable clothing to benefit people experiencing poverty. As a rule, twice a day, in the morning and in the evening, she personally visited all the sick and treated those who were particularly repulsive among them. She fed one, repaired the bed with the other, took others on her shoulders, and showed them many other services of humanity. And when her husband died, longing for the highest perfection with many tears, she begged me to allow her to beg from home. Once on Good Friday, when the altars were exposed, she laid her hands on the altar and renounced her own will, all the glory of the world, and everything that the Savior recommended to leave in the Gospel in the presence of a few. When she did this and saw that the hustle and bustle of the world and the worldly glory of the region, where honors surrounded her during her husband’s lifetime, could entice her, she came to see me in Marburg against my will. There she set up a kind of shelter in the city, gathered the sick and infirm, and seated the poorest and most despised at her table. And although she was so active, I speak before God that I rarely saw a woman so inner. Some nuns and religious sisters often saw her face glow admirably, with the sun’s rays emanating from her eyes as she emerged from the seclusion of prayer.

Before I died, I confessed to her, and when I asked what should be done with her property and furniture, she replied that everything she had seemingly owned for a long time belonged to the poor. She begged me to give them everything, except the flimsy clothes she was wearing, and wanted to be buried in. Then she received the Lord’s body and spoke until the evening about the best she had heard in the sermon. Finally, in deep piety, she recommended to God all who were with her, and as if she fell asleep sweetly, she breathed her last breath.

She died 4 years after a 24-year-old man on November 17, 1231. Her life was shortened by strict renunciation and submission to strict guidance. She was buried in Marburg. Already 4 years after her death, Pope Gregory IX declared her a saint. It was confirmed in her life that modesty not only beautifies our earthly life, but according to the promise of the Lord Jesus, when everything returns to us from “twelve to sixku “, it opens the way to heavenly life for us. This is the real medicine that will cure everyone of their crooked character.

On November 18, the Roman Catholic Church commemorates the anniversary of the consecration of the two most important churches of world Catholicism – St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican and St. Paul’s Basilica outside the walls. These temples are closely connected to the lives and legacies of the apostles Peter and Paul, who confirmed their devotion to Christ through their faith and martyrdom.

According to tradition, Saint Peter was buried on the Vatican Hill, where he died on the cross during Nero’s persecution of Christians. Saint Paul, beheaded by the sword, was laid to rest on the Ostia road outside the walls of Rome. Emperor Constantine the Great had magnificent basilicas built over these places of piety in the 4th century to preserve their memory and thus allow the faithful to worship the apostles at their graves.

St. Peter’s Basilica, the original building of which was constructed in 324 under Emperor Constantine I (306–337), was in a state of disrepair in the 15th century. Pope Nicholas V (1447–1455) decided to build a new basilica that would be a worthy symbol for the Christian world. Construction took more than a century, with the best architects of their time – Bramante, Rafael, Michelangelo, and Bernini participating in the project.

Today’s St. Peter’s Basilica was completed on November 18, 1626, during the pontificate of Pope Urban VIII. (1623 – 1644), It is one of the architectural gems and is the largest Christian temple in the world. Its massive dome, designed by Michelangelo, is an iconic symbol of Rome. At the same time, the main altar, beneath which St. Peter’s tomb is located, is a vital place of prayer and a destination for pilgrims.

Her current project is worth mentioning: visualizations using artificial intelligence, which will be launched on the threshold of the Holy Year on December 1, 2024.

The Basilica of St. Paul outside the walls is an equally impressive work. The original building was rebuilt and expanded under Emperor Valentinian II. (375 – 392) and later decorated with mosaics, frescoes, and columns. However, in 1823, the temple was destroyed by a massive fire.

The restoration under the leadership of Pope Leo XII. (1823 – 1829) and Gregory XVI. (1831 – 1846) brought a return to her beauty and festive character. Today’s building, consecrated by Pope Pius IX. (1846 – 1878), It is decorated with portraits of all popes, frescoes depicting the life of Saint Paul, and a reliquary under the main altar where his remains are housed.

Pope Pius IX. ordered that the anniversary of the consecration of the basilica be celebrated together with the anniversary of the consecration of St. Peter’s Basilica on November 18. This occurred on December 10, 1854, at the conclusion of the celebration marking the declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, in the presence of many bishops from around the world.

Both basilicas represent the spiritual pillars of the Catholic Church. Their importance is also highlighted by the obligation of bishops to visit these temples every five years during visits ad limina apostolorum, which not only symbolizes but also realistically builds the unity and continuity of the Church.

 Around 165 BC, the pagan king Antiochus Epiphanes came to power in the region of Palestine. He saw the Jews’ loyalty to their covenant as an obstacle to his power over them. He began to forbid them from practising their customs and traditions, even by force. Anyone who rejected his decrees was put to death. It was a dark period for Jerusalem, during which many Jews gave up hope. But God remained faithful to them! He chose Judah the Maccabees and his brothers from among them to avert this calamity. They inspired the people with their words and courageous testimony, encouraging them to fight against Antiochus’ tyranny and uphold the covenant.

It was a bloody war, but the Maccabees were victorious in the end. Antiochus was defeated, and the Temple was dedicated to the Lord once more. Since then, many people have been persecuted for their religion. Remember the sacking and plundering of Rome during the time of St Augustine, as well as the many other religious wars that represent a dark chapter in our history. Consider the Russian pogroms against Jews in the late nineteenth century and the anti-clericalism of the Spanish Civil War.

However, at such times, God has always raised heroes to lead and encourage people to persevere, and to protect the unarmed and the most vulnerable. Only some of us have a mission similar to that of the Maccabees of Judah. Nevertheless, we should all strive to live our faith heroically and meaningfully. Through our words, we can bring hope to the despondent. By bearing a peaceful testimony full of joy, we can show others how to remain faithful even when faced with pressure to conform to the world’s way of thinking. And through prayer, we can change the course of history! In today’s prayer, thank God for all the heroes and heroines from the past. Then pray for all those who are currently experiencing real persecution for their religious beliefs. After all, they are our brothers and sisters, and they need our help and support.

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.