Patriarch Kirill ‘copying John Paul II’

In the New York Times, Sophia Kishkovsky files a report on Patriarch Kirill’s recent youth rallies in Moscow and St. Petersburg where he struck both nationalist and highly personal tones.

Patriarch Kirill also did not mention America, but said immoral economies are doomed to collapse. “An economic system built only on the striving for profit, on indifference to the fate of people, on disregard for moral norms, is deprived of stability and can collapse at any moment, burying the fate of people under its rubble,” he said.

Here in St. Petersburg, Patriarch Kirill struck a much more personal tone. He made a generous reference to Martin Luther King Jr. — whom Kirill said he met in 1968 — and his “I Have a Dream” speech, and stressed the importance of true love and of striving for ideals.

“He wasn’t a dreamer, he was a brilliant politician, orator, and Christian pastor,” Patriarch Kirill said of Dr. King, addressing some 8,000 students. “But he had a dream, and this dream led to very concrete achievements.”

Some analysts compliment the patriarch for his charisma:

To some Russian observers, Patriarch Kirill has taken a page from Pope John Paul II, who was often regarded with suspicion by Russian church men.

“He is copying John Paul II, who had charisma,” said Anatoly Krasikov, director of the Center for Religious and Social Studies of the Institute of Europe in Moscow and formerly a journalist on Vatican affairs for the state-run Itar-Tass news agency. “Kirill is the only Orthodox figure here who has that gift.”

In Moscow and St. Petersburg, aspects of Patriarch Kirill’s rallies suggested at least an element of coercion. The stiffer Moscow gathering evoked meetings of the Kremlin youth movement, Nashi (Ours), while in St. Petersburg students said they had been encouraged, though not forced, to attend by their colleges, which had informed them of the meeting anywhere from two weeks to hours before the event. Two young women were seen outside meeting their dean, who was distributing tickets. While they had been asked to attend, they considered it an honor.

Read “New Orthodox Patriarch Pulls No Punches” here.


  1. Roger Bennett :

    This comment may be too tangential to the thrust of the main posting.

    Should someone take umbrage at Patriarch Kiril’s references to “an economic system built only on the striving for profit, on indifference to the fate of people, on disregard for moral norms,” I’m not sure that the implied critique is more harsh – at least on the point of “disregard for moral norms” – than Chris Banescu’s podcast critique of recent capitalist practices (“Orthodox Christianity and Capitalism — Are They Compatible?”), under the nihil obstat if not the imprimatur of AOI.

    However, I’d like to play Devil’s Advocate to Banescu for a moment, if not necessarily an ally of Patriarch Kiril, suggesting that capitalism, socialism and communism do not exhaust our economic choices, and that capitalism no less than communism might fairly be called a “God That Failed.”

    I do not claim to have thought as long and hard about economics as Mr. Banescu has, but I came of age in the 60s, and have never been entirely at ease with assurances that if everyone will just pursue his or her own economic self-interest – glossed, perhaps, with the requirement that they do so morally – an “invisible hand” will work out the utilitarian calculus and benefit us all, or at least will benefit the greatest number with the greatest good.

    I commend to the readers of AOI a counter-hegemonic, multi-author blog, “Front Porch Republic,” which of late has included a number of posts advancing economic Distributism. Rooted in Roman Catholic social teaching of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, Distributism apparently has some notable successes in regions of latin Europe – and that is “success” in a raw economic terms as well as socially. Look at FPR for author John Médaille, or the topic “The Economics of Distributism.”

    I don’t want Orthodoxy in America to get too committed to any economic view – that’s not what the faith is about, and it has survived bad economies and regimes of all sorts – but I include in “any economic view” capitalism along with all others.

  2. John Couretas :


    Correct. Distributism is rooted in Catholic social teaching. And it has been effectively demolished as an economic ideology by a number of Catholics who have perceived its intrinsic contradictions.

    Read Thomas Woods’ “Beyond Distributism” on the Web site of the Acton Institute. Excerpt:

    The arguments offered in defense of this system, while perhaps superficially plausible, turn out to be based on logical and economic fallacies, as well as on a serious misreading of European history. Distributists blame widespread indebtedness on the free market instead of on central banks (which are creations of government) that make credit artificially cheap and thus all the more tempting — an abuse whose effects the global financial system is now suffering. The medieval economy that distributism holds up as a model bears little resemblance to that which professional historians and economists have come to understand. Neither land ownership nor ownership of the means of production was widely dispersed under the feudal system. Even urban workers outside traditional feudal bonds often did not own the means of production. Peasants labored exhausting hours and barely made ends meet even with all members of their families working. The guild system, far from being a liberating force, was actually the source of true monopoly and exploitation.

    Advocates contend that distributism is a superior form of economic organization and is required by Catholic social teaching. Neither claim is true.

    If you’d like a deeper treatment of the subject, I’d be happy to send you Woods’ 79-page monograph on the subject. I work for Acton.

  3. Fr. Johannes Jacobse :

    Roger, I agree with your caution. At the same time, economic systems don’t exist apart from the moral culture of a society. Distribution of course is compelling within cultural Marxism, that is, the state functions as the judge and enforcer of the moral culture. Capitalism, on the other hand, requires at least a moral consensus shaped by Christian values (honesty, thrift, the integrity of the oath [contracts]), etc. When the moral culture devolves (in our case the consensus has shattered), statism is the only alternative apart from anarchy which societies simply cannot tolerate. Distributionism is merely statist economics in a moral disguise.

  4. Wow. Is this a sore subject for me.

    All economic systems are merely ways to distribute limited resources. The difference is that a free market (“capitalism” was Marx’s term) allows those who most value a product or service to pay a price acceptable to the seller in a manner that most efficiently addresses the needs of each.

    When prices become “too high” or “too low,” the political class may rant, but this often causes the market to respond quickly. For example, after a flood (of, say, Katrina-like proportions), electrical generation becomes a critical issue. Those who most desperately need it (like grocery stores, medical centers, etc.) will pay high prices to ensure power. This quickly attracts the attention of folks who are happy to provide generators at such prices, rapidly meeting the need and, as the need is met, reducing the price until the profit margins are too thin to warrant the effort. By then, those who “really” need them, have them.

    If this was left to the government — well, weeks may go by before one sees a generator – and by then massive spoilage will have created other crises as well. It was the government, after all, that inspired the term SNAFU. In short, freely established prices allows fallen humanity (whose motives are rarely what they ought to be) to meet the most urgent needs of their fellow man in the more efficient manner possible. As Adam Smith noted, a reasonable price ensures prompt service without having to depend upon the good motives of the provider. If this seems “immoral” to some, they are wrong. To be able to do so over a long period of time, however, depends – as any business owner will tell you – upon trustworthiness, diligence, deferring gratification and a host of other virtues.

    The introduction of coercion or fraud into that process (whether by the buyer, the seller or a third party – i.e., government) distorts and disrupts the value of the process. Regardless of the reason (and the modern expression invariably involves the justification of “social justice”), it is no longer free, no longer an exchange of mutual benefit, no longer sustainable means of creating wealth.

    Because the exchange is believed to be mutually beneficial by the parties involved, free markets offer the opportunity to bless one’s neighbor in a way that no other system can. For example, if I decide that a Microsoft-based system is no longer desirable, I may purchase an Apple product. This allows me – and Apple – to better meet my needs as I understand them. Just as important, Bill Gates will not send a threatening letter to my home. (Likewise, for those who see some value in berating WalMart and its ilk, Steve Jobs does put a gun to my head.) This ability to hire the one and “fire” the other creates a powerful “feedback” loop that keeps both remarkably responsive to the needs of their markets. There is, so far as I can see, no equivalent feed back loop when dealing with the government. You can not fire them; there is no “competition” — unless you wish to emigrate. The end result is . . . the DMV.

    Yet government is not just “protected” from the “feedback loop” of market forces, it also has a monopoly on violence. This makes it both unresponsive and potentially dangerous. The beauty of the system devised by the Founding Fathers is that they recognized the inherently corrosive effect of concentrated power and dispersed it broadly reducing its potential for systemic mischief and making it reasonably responsive to both the citizens and the states. (This has since been undermined in many ways, by such changes as the direct election of Senators, etc.) The more intrusive the government is in the process – for whatever reason – the more distortion it introduces. Over time, this distortion will create inefficiencies that cause more suffering that the initial problem they were intended to mitigate.

    These inefficiencies are, I believe, unavoidable. When an entrepreneur uses economic means to generate an economic benefit; that is, he must use his resources to offer increased value to the market in order to generate economic profits. A politician, however, typically makes an economic decision to generate a political profit, often irrespective of economic prudence. If we are concerned about blessing our neighbor (by providing him with that which he values) or providing prudent stewardship (by generating a return on our limited resources), how can we support any kind of systemic distortion of legitimate free exchange? If stewardship is, in fact, a concern, who will care better for the forests, for example: the lumber company whose long-term profitability depends upon them or the academic, whose notions may or may not work, and who will suffer no meaningful consequence if his ideas fail? In my experience, you are better served by the one who has “skin in the game.”

    The political class likes to laud its noble intentions, but intentions are irrelevant at best and delusional at worst. Regardless of the reason, coercive intrusion permits the Takers to extort from the Makers (in the name of “justice” or “fairness”); in its final form, such redistribution (a horrible misnomer since it was earned, not distributed, in the first place) is simply legal theft. While we may recognize that a “social safety net” is necessary for those who CAN NOT work, it is counter productive when offered to those who WILL NOT work. Ironically, these policies established to effect “social justice” create moral hazards that are inexorable and destructive. At a certain point (that is, when the point where the number of takers exceeds the number of makers), “pillaging” the most productive members in society puts that society on a road that will eventually lead to bankruptcy and potential collapse. By contrast, a free market sustains society since the long-term welfare of any venture,organization, community or society ultimately depends on the efficient and productive allocation of resources.
    Which system, then, is more “just”?

    My apologies for the excessively long post.

  5. Roger Bennett :

    I’ll not say much about distributism at least until I have read some of the critiques of distributism cited by John. I will say that I don’t recognize the distributism I’ve been reading about at Front Porch Republic in the critiques distilled in the comboxes here.

  6. George Michalopulos :

    My only critique about Distributism at present is that the moral order is non-existent and such a scheme could only survive if 90% of the people subscribed to the normal Judaeo-Christian moral order. That toothpaste cannot be put back into the tube.

    There was a time in which it was considered “normal” for people to engage in sexual relations only within marriage. Women accepted this wholeheartedly, men less so, but still it was a given. A Distributist system or any system that allocates resources to families is predicated on the fact that any given family is going to remain intact. Therefore all real property is going to not be torn asunder if and when the marriage becomes defunct (because marriages did not become defunct). Barring some unfortunate circumstance (such as a death of a spouse), the next oldest child in the family of the opposite sex took the place of the deceased parent (except sexually). It was also understood that the woman not only would not work outside the family home, but would have found the very idea outlandish. Therefore wives competing with working men for the same job was a non-starter.

    As it happens, the Nat’l Assoc of Manufacturers way back in 1918 (or 1922) wanted to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, which would have “emancipated” women from the domicile. To what end? So they could enter the workforce and compete with men for the same job, thereby depressing wage demands.

    My point, as it meanders, is that the moral consensus is shattered, therefore a Distributist system could not work. Women intuitively know this but in the final analysis accept the present anarchy on the off-chance that their husbands are going to leave them and they’ll be reduced to penury.

    The loss of the moral order explains why labor unions are also crumbling. (Those gigantic unions like the NEA, UFSMC, etc. are unions for teachers and government workers, mostly female, and therefore not real unions of working and laboring men.) It’ll be a matter of time before they go kaput themselves.

  7. Fr. Johannes Jacobse :

    Speaking of the DMV, when I moved to Atlanta for a year, getting my drivers license exchanged from Florida to Georgia became next to impossible. No kind of identification qualified except my passport. Birth certificates could be forged, the fact that my Florida license was current didn’t count, no letter from my employer, no sworn oath from my wife even with a wedding license, no documentation from my insurance company — nothing except my passport. Well, my passport had expired so that didn’t work either. I spent hours on this — and finally gave up. I just decided to drive on my Florida license as long as it remained current.

    Can you imagine what it will be like if the government takes over health care?

  8. Fr. Johannes Jacobse :

    Roger, distributionism works only when free markets function because socialism depends on the wealth creation of others in order to function. Once the free market is either regulated out of existence or hamstrung to the point that profit becomes impossible (same thing really), goods and services dry up and the overall standard of living falls.

  9. George Michalopulos :

    Fr, your point about DMV and driver’s licences is why so many Americans are p/o’s about illegal aliens. They can waltz in here, forge an ID card and vote. But you or I getting an updated ID takes nothing less than an Act of Congress. It’s blatantly unfair.

  10. Greetings, Fr. Hans.

    You write: “Can you imagine what it will be like if the
    government takes over health care?”

    I have only a couple comments as I think this is of general interest to Orthodox and non-Orthodox:

    The primary issue is the size and scope of the agency, not merely that it is government-handled. Local governments may actually be able to administer funds in a capable manner. I recently dealt with a very large commercial company that was handling our cable and internet service. The service provided was far worse than anything I experienced at the DMV, I can assure you. 30-45 min. calls on hold, 4-5 transfers, questions never answered and calls never returned. It was abysmal. On the flip side, I’ve been to local government agencies that handle high volume where I was in and out within 10 minutes. Our state government has offices that are particularly efficiently handled.

    As I’m also sure you know, the concept of insurance is that risk is spread across demographics. Many of the uninsured in the country are younger and odds are would provide some financial support to a universal system but would at the same time not contribute a high level of risk. I’d be curious as to what their financial responsibility would be via any taxes incurred versus what they’d be paying out-of-pocket for coverage. I’m betting it would be a bit more affordable.

    I’m just not getting why UHC is opposed purely out of principle without looking at the specifics and seeing whether there’s a reasonable, pragmatic solution. If one is possible, do we not want to look at it at all?

    This doesn’t even touch on the moral question of whether health care should only be granted to the fortunate and those of means.

  11. Fr. Johannes Jacobse :

    You’ve convinced me James. I’m against turning health care over to your cable company too.

  12. Michael Bauman :

    James K, insurance is not just about spreading risk, it is about selection of risk. That is really what the liberals are so hot about given their egalitarianism.

    Government has worked really hard to make health care as expensive as possible so that it can step in and ‘solve’ the problem it has helpled to create. Medicare reimbursement rates are part of that btw.

    The politicians have also quite successfully propagandized the idea that people should have zero responsibility for their own health and bear no cost for medical care at all.

    People have bought into the idea that technology always results in perfect outcomes (full recovery, no death). Many doctors and hospitals market such obscene ideas which lawyers take full advantage of.

    All too often insurance companies forget that they are dealing with human beings although the ‘spreading of risk’ you mentioned also means less specificity of care than many people would like. We also tend to forget that “he who pays, decides”

    Some doctors, clinics and hospitals practice fraud simply because they are greedy costing billions of dollars and killing people at times.

    In the midst of all this a great many excellent health care professionals heal with human touch and concern using technology where needed and appropriate hampered as they are by legal considerations, government and insurance rules.

    Do you think for a minute that government run health care will be administered at the local level? You’ve got to be kidding me.

    The overlay of a corrupt, power-mad bureaucracy onto a system struggling to be human as it is–well, it’s insane. But the almighty ‘American people’ will probably buy further into the insanity because of greed, ignorance, apathy and the incessant demogoguery of the political class.

    Statism is a violation of everything Christ died to free us from. It is a violation of the revelation that Christ brought us of what being human really means. That is exactly why every statist government sooner or later gets around to persecuting Christians.

    Obama really means to free us from our irrational adherence to faith in God replacing it with a forced subservience to the state.

  13. Roger Bennett :

    Liberals? Check!
    Cunning government conspiracy? Check!
    Pie-in-the-sky political promises? Check!
    Fraudulent business promises? Check!
    Opportunistic lawyers? Check!
    Cold, bureaucratic corporations? Check!
    Greedy, lethal doctors? Check!
    Corrupt, power-hungry bureaucrats? Check!
    Lazy and credulous populace? Check!
    Christian persecution? Check!
    Obama subjection of believers? Check!
    I’m convinced: All the powers of evil are arrayed against us. Resistance is futile. Flee to the mountains!

  14. Michael Bauman :

    Ok Roger, just a simple question that does not require sophisticated thought. What good will having the federal government control healthcare do?

    Name one thing.

  15. Michael, a question for you: does a hospital have any ethical responsibility to treat someone with a serious medical condition who does not have insurance?

    Under our current system, if they’re treated (and many hospitals will accept the uninsured to the ER), the uninsured pays nothing. Under universal health care, it seems that they’d actually be paying something if they have any income at all.

    I just don’t understand why the Right, for all its defense of life, so rejects the notion that people in their final stages of life deserve some degree of dignity and care just because they’re not fortunate enough to be employed or of sufficient means to be covered.

  16. George Michalopulos :

    James, speaking as someone in the health care field, I can honestly say that any universal system/single-payer system, though in theory would be more “Christian,” in reality is anything but. It merely rations health care to such an extreme that entire classes of people are effectively cut off from ever receiving health care.

    By this I mean the elderly, the overweight. Under the proposal being looked at right now, these procedures will be severely limited: C-sections and back surgeries are two that come instantly to mind.

    The reason I keep coming back to political conservatism (as opposed to libertarianism) is because the conservatives looks at reality as opposed to theory. In other words, Aristotle was more right than Plato. For instance, I have no essential beef with homosexuals wanting to “solemnize” their unions in a faux-heretical service, but I feel I have to fight even against this concession because inevitably leads to civil sanction. Why am I against politically-sanctioned “gay marriage”? Because at that point, the polygamist will say there is no logical reason to prevent polygamy. (And they’d be right.) So what’s wrong with polygamy? Answer: all polygynous societies are inherently violent, far more violent than monogamous ones. They are also far more hierarchical, patriarchal, and they lend themselves to tyranny.

    So forgive the digression, but Christians must look at the world as it is: full of sin and not as it should be, because it cannot be that which we wish. That does not mean that the Church should not be involved. Indeed, it is ONLY the Church which should be involved in eleemoysenery activities, not the State.

    Also, universal schemes invariably create a much worse caste system if you will, in which those who are wealthy will opt out of the government system and take their dollars elsewhere, invariably drawing the best and the brightest of the medical profession with them.

  17. Roger Bennett :


    Maybe I misunderstand the rules of engagement here. Must I defend the affirmative of “government should control health care” in order to ridicule an unhelpful apocalyptic conspiracy argument?

    I could play Devil’s Advocate for the affirmative, but I’ll refrain. Ars longa, vida brevis.

  18. Fr. Johannes Jacobse :

    George, you will discover that James will support any statist policy that wraps itself in the vocabulary of Christian morality with no regard about how the policy works in real life. (He really believes that health care will be more equitable if government runs it.) His objections are moralistic, not substantive, in character and shaped by an impenetrable moral relativism. Intentions alone justify policy, not results.

    Thus, when unable to defend his own position, he will attack your motives instead:

    I just don’t understand why the Right, for all its defense of life, so rejects the notion that people in their final stages of life deserve some degree of dignity and care just because they’re not fortunate enough to be employed or of sufficient means to be covered.

    …thereby starting the entire cycle all over again. As I said, impenetrable.

  19. Father,

    Do you see the similarity to what yo just accused JAmes of doing and what I accuse George and some others on this site of doing?

  20. Fr. Johannes Jacobse :

    Actually, I see more clearly the similarity between what I “accuse” James of doing and what you “accuse” me of doing.

    Look Tom, pointing out James’ captivity to moral relativism is not out of bounds. It is part of discourse in the public square.

    I have no problem with your critique of my words about James’ comments. But you will have to be clearer about what parts you find objectionable and why you find them that way.

    BTW, I’ve debated James before so my comments aren’t drawn out of thin air.

  21. Father, you misunderstand. I do not find your comments about what James said to be objectionable. I just find it ironic that you feel James is captive to his ideology to the point of following it “ove a clif” as the saying goes and I see George and others doing the same thing. They cannot see the absurdity of their constant bashing of the EP/GOA because they are blinded by their ideology. If you cannot see that, fine, but it is certainly not a criticism of what you accuse James of doing nor is it a suggestion that you not do it.

  22. Fr. Johannes Jacobse :

    Continuing, let me explain how a statement like this:

    I just don’t understand why the Right, for all its defense of life, so rejects the notion that people in their final stages of life deserve some degree of dignity and care just because they’re not fortunate enough to be employed or of sufficient means to be covered.

    …works. It requires the respondent to prove his motives; to disprove to James that someone against government run health care is callous towards those who are “not fortunate enough to be employed or of sufficient means to be covered.”

    The statement has no substantive content. It is moralistic. Further, after someone takes the time to answer it, the discussion won’t return to substantive debate. Another moralistic assertion will be thrown out, starting the cycle all over again.

    From the other direction, when James is challenged on an idea of his, he will simply make a counter-assertion to your challenge, a kind of mirror opposite that implies that a strong equivalency exists between the two statements, and thereby (in his mind) neutralizes your objection. When you point this out, he returns to an attack on motives.

    For example, note my comment about the DMV above. James responds with two counter-assertions: 1) his cable company has horrible customer service; and 2) some government departments run efficiently. The implied conclusion: The claim that government cannot handle health care is false. Discussion is closed.

    The DMV comment is basically a throw-away line. It’s not worth defending and most everyone knows it is true. So look past the content for a second and examine how James’ response is structured. He posits a counter assertion (two in this case), as if the assertions themselves resolve this part of the argument. They don’t of course, as anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of the issue knows.

    If James doesn’t really understand why “the Right” holds the position it does on health care, then it is his responsibility to read more and learn about it. Moreover, if he thinks he understands how government run health care will work, then his defense has to be more than moralistic assertions attacking the motives of those who oppose it. Moralistic assertions are not the same things as ideas, but in this Oprah generation where we have lost the distinction between sentiment and reason, many people believe they are one and the same.

    James can’t seem to break out of this cycle. It’s reflexive. It leads has led me to conclude his thinking is bound to moral relativism.

  23. Fr. Johannes Jacobse :

    A person captive to moral relativism is highly susceptible to ideological captivity. He can be a relativist without being an ideologue. However, as the responsibilities of life increase, he will have to either: 1) give up his relativism; 2) embrace an ideology; or 3) stay perpetually immature (like a 50 year old pothead).

    “Ideology” here is defined in the philosophical sense: a self-contained and self-referencing system of ideas.

  24. Fr Hans notes: “[I]f he thinks he understands how government run health care will work, then his defense has to be more than moralistic assertions attacking the motives of those who oppose it”

    That’s the problem. There are as numerous implementations of UHC as there are nations that adopt it. Some countries in the EU provide basic coverage only. The Netherlands utilizes a dual-system: primary and curative is through private while long-term care for the disabled and elderly is social insurance. Israel seems to have been relatively successful with its utilization of several HMOs which effectively compete for their consumers, as they may switch up to once annually.

    On the flip side, the various critiques of UHC (at least the ones I’ve read), are non-specific and vague. They’re often opposed to it out of principle without touching on any of these details. Even the Cato Institute, who’s opinions I tend to take seriously, didn’t seem to offer a whole lot of substance. Are we opposed to any social insurance or just some? Can the way those funds are managed make a difference in this at all?

    So, I don’t understand why I’m being accused of making unreasoned and overly moralistic assertions when it seems that most rejection of any and all forms of UHC can be summed up as “government is inept”. That’s not very helpful and it doesn’t seem very rational.

    By the way, I don’t think it’s out of the question to bring up the moral considerations of this issue (which are admittedly complex). Abortion is a moral issue is it not? (although I think it’s a failure to acknowledge the basic civil liberties to the unborn as well). It’s not merely an issue of pragmatism.

  25. George Michalopulos :

    Tom, being a conservative, I don’t have an “ideology.” (The one I want, libertarianism, I can’t have.) That’s because conservatives agree with Burke and C S Lewis, that “reality is conservative.” So i must reject your assertion that my brief against the Phanar/GOA is “ideological.”

    In addition, my brief for local autonomy comes directly from the life the Church and the various canons which came out of the Church and are used as guides for Her life. It has absolutely nothing to do with any perceived antipathy. (Instead, please view any negative remarks as emanating from a structural defect I have –that is not being able to suffer fools [or foolish arguments] gladly.) I would be absolutely opposed to Patriarch Kirill going into Greece or Bulgaria, or wherever and stating that he has “jurisdiction” over these lands. I suppose you would be too.

    May I suggest Zizioulis’ “Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood,” St Cyprian of Carthage’s “To the Catholic Church,” Canon 13 of Carthage, and the other canons mentioned in Patriarch Pimen’s letter to Patriarch Athenagoras regarding the granting of autocephaly to a daughter church which was no longer part of the same polity? This will give you a better idea of what animates me. Hint: it’s not papalism or “submission to first thrones.” Luckily for me, it looks like the bishops who met at Chambesy have the same idea.

Care to Comment?