Friday, November 27, 2020

Franciscan Minister General Appointed Archabbot

By Jean DuBois

FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 27 November 2020 (ORCNS) 

Archabbot Anthony Giunta, TOR Mar. 

Mgr. Abbot Anthony Giunta, TOR Mar., Minister-General of the Franciscan Third Order Regular of the Brothers and Sisters of Penance of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Franciscan order within the Anglican Patriarchate, was appointed by His Holy Eminence the Archfather to the personal rank and dignity of Archabbot in recognition of his countless years of service to the Church and as Minister-General of the Franciscans. His Excellency Archabbot Anthony serves as a hospital chaplain, police chaplain, fire chaplain, and Coast Guard Auxiliary chaplain. An active participant in emergency response efforts, the Archabbot has also been highly involved in serving during the COVID-19 pandemic, both pastorally and in virus test processing. 

The Archabbot was also given the special honour of being named a Canon Priest of the Patriarchal Chapter. The Chapter is the senior section of the Anticamera Nobile of the Patriarchal Household. Its members are prelates (ecclesiastical dignitaries) and serve as the senior-most clerical advisers of the Archfather. 

Coat of Arms of Archabbot Anthony
His personal arms are marshaled with the arms of
the Franciscan order. The ten tassels indicate the rank
of archabbot, and they are in purple instead of black 
as a privilege as a member of the Patriarchal Chapter.


Utilitarianism and Americanism


The following encyclical was
released this day:


Utilitarianism and Americanism

UTILITARIANISM and Americanism are two concepts that walk hand in hand. These are philosophies of which good Christian people should take care, lest the obligation to follow the Laws of God above all else be set to the side in favour of inauthentic forms of patriotism. We are obligated as guardian of the faith to reaffirm and assert that it is the cure of souls that is of utmost importance and must take precedence over all worldly concerns. The recent actions of national, state, provincial, and local leaders in the pandemic to deny, even at times violently, the rights of Holy Mother the Church and the rights to religious participation of the people in various countries around the world, including in the United States, pointing to an underlying fault. In the American case, of which We particularly write at this time, society is seeing an example of utilitarianism that is deeply rooted in the very foundation of the American political and legal system. That same set of principles is being seen additionally in various forms of republican democracy around the world, for the foundational principles of the United States were not colonial-born original concepts, but were taken entirely from the Enlightenment and Deist principles circulating in Europe and the United Kingdom at the time of the American Revolution and subsequent development of the American Constitution. Also, that same set of principles ironically bears a striking similarity, at least in practical terms of outcome, to many of those in socialist and communist societies. Let us then focus for the purpose of clarity on the American historical case.

The Holy Father Leo XIII in his encyclical Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae to Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore in 1899 defined the heresy of Americanism, protesting the intertwining of American democracy with the Catholic faith. That is, the faith is the faith, no matter the point in time or the geographical location. Any potentially unique elements of experience of a particular people do not warrant a modification of the doctrine of the faith, the principles of liturgy, or essential elements of praxis. We recall again from the Constitution of the Catholic Faith, "For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother, the Church, has once declared, nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them." (Constitutio de Fide Catholica, Chapter iv.). 

The Constitution of the United States was heavily influenced by, among others, the then-new utilitarian movement. Jeremy Bentham, a subject of the British Crown and considered the founder of utilitarianism, corresponded heavily with the Founding Fathers of the United States. Although he considered the Declaration of Independence a rambling document that committed the logical fallacy of begging the question, i.e., assuming the validity of the conclusion in making the arguments rather than the arguments supporting and leading to the conclusion, he generally believed that utilitarianism was on the side of the revolution. That is, principles of utilitarianism, he believed, made the American Revolution a justifiable act from a moral standpoint, despite being High Treason. In an interesting twist of irony, the subsequent United States republic would not permit such arguments as justification for any of those throughout its history that have attempted to rebel against it. Thus it can be taken to consider utilitarian arguments only from its own government and national perspective. Nevertheless, the utilitarian conceptual framework directly formed the core principles of the American legislative and judicial systems that persist to this day.

Utilitarianism is, in the briefest terms, the idea that the most moral course of action or decision is that which does the greatest good for the greatest number. Although on the surface that may seem good, We are bound by duty to point out to all good Christian people that it is not in fact moral from the supreme authority of Christian faith. Utilitarianism has a number of flaws, among which are:

1. Who defines what is good? It is inevitably the government, for no other practical outcome is likely. Even in a republican democracy, where it can be said that it is ultimately the public defining good through its vote, the body that actually makes such determinations at the point of decision is the government. There can be, however, no doubt that right and wrong are not determined by popular vote. Ironically, this is a point of overlap with socialist and communist regimes, for in such societies it is the government that decides what is good and what is right, and the impact on the people and especially on any given individual becomes subjugated to state interests.

2. Utilitarianism furthermore places less importance on damage done to those who do not fall in the category of “the greatest number.” That is, for example, if a few must suffer so that many may thrive, a government that follows utilitarian principles sees no problem in the suffering of those few. Indeed, in a democratic system in which the government depends on the votes of the people, politicians are more likely to care about the larger number that is benefiting, for they provide more votes than the smaller number that is suffering. This is yet another point of overlap with socialist and communist regimes, for in such societies the impact on the people and especially on any given individual becomes subjugated to state interests.

3. Those who dissent from a popular decision are typically forced to go along with the will of the majority, even when following a dissenting pathway would do no harm to anyone. This becomes particularly problematic when society chooses a wrong pathway from the standpoint of the absolute truth of the Christian faith. If a Christian, for example were to acknowledge that society may exercise its free will to follow a wrong path, but does not wish to follow along, there may be social, financial, or even legal or physical penalties to pay. It is impossible to consider a society to be a free society if the most fundamental freedom, that of religion, which gets at the very core of a person’s very nature, is not absolutely respected and completely defended and protected by the government. 

4. Utilitarianism ultimately fails to respect, any societal or political rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding, the rights of individuals. A society based on utilitarianism will not hesitate to sacrifice any one individual if it deems it necessary. Furthermore, the voice of any one individual is as a voice crying in the wilderness, a voice shouting to be heard over a hurricane, for it is only strength of numbers that is respected in such a society.

The present pandemic has shown the very essence of American constitutional utilitarianism. Even the state officials that happen to be socialist-leaning nevertheless follow the utilitarian principal, at least in the claims they make in their rhetoric, for they claim to be imposing restrictions in order to do the most good for the most people. No doubt if a larger percentage of the American population wanted a different outcome in terms of pandemic response, politicians would respond, and the circumstances would surely be quite different. This is utilitarianism in action. Those who dissent, from the citizens to scientists to politicians, are ultimately forced in one manner or another, whether it be through civil and criminal penalties, employment requirements, or social sanctions, to go along with the will of the people as interpreted by the current array of leadership in the government. This has even touched deeply on the American government’s lack of respect for the very sovereignty of Holy Mother the Church and the right of religious participation of the people. It also completely denies the rights of individuals to determine the best course of action in terms of their balance between relevant aspects of life, such as pandemic-related health, other health issues, mental health, and the fundamental right to provide for the well-being of themselves and their family. That is not to say, of course, that government does not have a responsibility to deal appropriately with public health issues, but it must not be in a manner of tunnel vision that subjugates all else to one particular goal. The present pandemic response is, again, utilitarianism in action. 

For all its high-minded rhetoric of the rights of the individual, the American Constitution is fundamentally a utilitarian document. It seems content to let people exercise their civil liberties when it is convenient to do so, but it is equally content to restrict or suspend them, or even eliminate them altogether when it is deemed to be in the best interests of what it considers to be the greatest good for the greatest number. 

American constitutional utilitarianism, which forms part of the broad concept of Americanism, indeed walks hand-in-hand with the theological concept of Americanism as defined by the Holy Father Leo XIII. It is unsurprising that people in different geographical locations and at different times in history will reach different conclusions regarding what is the greatest good for the greatest number. If that is applied to the faith, it has only one outcome, which is to yield different versions of the faith according to the determination of what is best by the local population. That is no faith at all, for the faith of Christ knows neither time nor space. Furthermore, it leads to the erroneous idea that the church should bend to the will of the local population, even to the majority, and the erroneous idea that such a course of action would be for the greater good. Indeed, We hear such arguments on a regular basis. Yet on the matters of faith, there can be no compromise. We are bound as the Christian faithful to follow the Laws of Christ above all others, even when we are in the minority – even if we find that no one will watch even one hour with us, and thus we must walk alone. It is from God alone that we derive the courage to do what is right. It is from the laws of God alone that the natural rights of mankind and the civil liberties of the people that must be safeguarded by the civil government derive. No government grants religious freedom. Rather, they merely choose to recognise and defend or else not recognise and deny the rights of mankind given by God. Authentic patriotism as Christians, then, is not to the people, it is not to a piece of paper, it is not to government, and it is not to a flag. Authentic patriotism is rooted in a love of one’s neighbour in the example of Christ and involves following the Laws of God above all else. When we each stand before the Throne of Judgment, as we all will, let us not say that we worshipped a flag or placed a constitution as the supreme law. Rather, let us weigh against our sins the strength of our devotion, worshiping at the altar of God alone and placing His law as supreme.

Tuesday, November 24, 2020

Archpatral Statement on U.S. Election 2020


By Jean DuBois 


His Holy Eminence the Archfather has released a statement on the recent United States Presidential election apparent outcome, pending further challenges by Mr. Trump. English and Spanish transcripts are provided below the video. The Archfather's statement reiterated the Christian guidance for voting, especially regarding the right to life. His Holy Eminence also stated that it is difficult to imagine God blessing any country that rejects God. 


The Americans have chosen a president for the next four years. The Christian faithful have been exhorted never to vote for a candidate who does not respect the right to life and who promotes socialism or communism, both of which are opposed to the faith of Christ. Now America will receive the government it deserves. Nevertheless, we Christian faithful throughout the world are above all citizens in the Kingdom of Christ. So, we must in all places oppose all the policies of the civil state contrary to the faith of Christ. It is impossible to think that God blesses a people that does not respect life and does not praise God. Therefore, may God convert the hearts of Europe, of the United States, and of the whole world to our Lord.

Los americanos han elegido un presidente para los próximos cuatro años. Se ha instado a los Cristianos a no votar nunca por un candidato que no respete el derecho a la vida y que promueva o el socialismo o el communismo, ambos opuestos a la Fe de Cristo. Ahora los Estados Unidos encontrará el gobierno que se merece. Sin embargo, nosotros los Cristianos en todo el mundo somos sobre todo ciudadanos en el Reino de Cristo. Por lo tanto, debemos oponernos en todos los lugares a todas las políticas del estado civil contrarias a la Fe de Cristo. Es imposible pensar que Dios bendiga un pueblo que no respeta la vida y no alaba a Dios. Por lo tanto, que Dios haga una conversión de los corazones de Europa, de los Estados Unidos, y del mundo entero a nuestro Señor.

Friday, November 20, 2020

Archfather: Hospital Shortages, Business Closures Due to Earlier Government Response



Confusio Mundi 

Encyclical from His Holy Eminence the Archfather Rutherford I on the ongoing humanitarian problems of the COVID-19 Pandemic 

THE confusion of the world continues during the declared global pandemic of COVID-19 as governments around the world impose a new series of lockdowns; forced business closures causing serious harm to families and individuals, including to the most basic right of being able to provide for one’s family; and restrictions on churches in violation of ecclesiastical sovereignty. Government continues to bear severe moral responsibility during a global humanitarian crisis that they themselves largely have spawned. 

One problem noted during the present period by the news media and governments is the potential strain on hospitals, due especially to staff shortages. We cannot help but observe that this is a problem created largely by the first government response in March in which many procedures, even non-elective ones, were prohibited, and indeed many people were too afraid to go to medical facilities even to obtain necessary treatment. With the drop in revenue stream, staff was furloughed or laid off, and hospital and medical facility finances were immensely strained. That is, the hospital staff shortage is largely due to the staff reductions in the early part of the pandemic, meaning that the response to the pandemic is now directly responsible for the reduced ability of hospitals to respond to the pandemic, not to mention to those who have other serious medical conditions or who need medical treatment in general. The government responses around the world were incredibly shortsighted, based on fear, and plagued with tunnel vision – and this current hospital situation is a prime example of that. Yet, the root cause of this receives very little, while government and media proclaim the shortage is a direct result of rising cases instead of mentioning that global hospital ability to engage in standard procedures for staff deployment and redeployment for increased influx of cases was the direct result of government pandemic response. That is the moral responsibility of government around the world. 

     Additionally, hospitals in countries such as the United States are essentially run as for-profit entities, even if they are non-profit. Hospitals and medical staff also contributed to the reduction in demand for medical services in some cases. Although we cannot promote or sustain a so-called socialised medicine system, a for-profit system has little incentive to prepare for pandemics. Pre-positioned stocks and distribution are inadequate around the world. To use an example in the United States, some administrations gutted military hospital systems due to costs to focus only on the dwindling number of military members, even reducing the number of medics, despite the military system being a tremendous source of medical experience, personnel, hospitals, logistics, supplies, and more during national emergencies.

Governments that claim that they are acting in the best interest of public health have a responsibility to consider all aspects of public health and the health system. They cannot claim to be acting in the interests of public health if they leave hospitals struggling and shorthanded. They cannot claim to be acting in the best interests of public health if they prohibit or place obstacles in the way of treatment for illnesses and issues other than the novel coronavirus, virtually acting as if other such diseases do not exist. Yet people are suffering who cannot get treatment or are too afraid to get treatment. If the reduction in treatment in any way was in fact really and truly a necessity in terms of public health, then, that cannot morally be justified unless the shortfall is made up out of the public treasury to ensure proper staffing. 

Similarly We have heard reports of shortages of vital hospital equipment. Likewise We cannot understand this, since efforts have apparently and allegedly been underway by government and companies to produce vital medical equipment since the beginning of the pandemic. There should, therefore, not be a crisis. Yet the severe financial position in which hospitals and medical facilities have found themselves due to the government response to the pandemic may very well be at the root cause of this. Therefore this is further a responsibility of government to ensure through funding out of the public treasury. 

Additionally, the government responses in the present period have placed even more financial and emotional burden on individuals and businesses. Many businesses, especially small businesses, are closing. The specific industries that are targeted in the new round of restrictions are, just as those of which We spoke earlier this year during the pandemic, defined by the government. The government is, therefore, picking winners and losers, which imposes an immense moral responsibility upon government. Simple financial compensation to pay for living expenses, for example, is not enough to compensate someone who lost a business or was attempting to start a business that incurred costs but never was able to gain traction due to being stopped by government mandates. Meanwhile, large corporations such as Walmart and Amazon have gained immense sums during the pandemic due to increased sales, including shifts away from struggling and/or closed businesses towards them. It is neither moral nor just, and also is not right under the laws of God that some businesses should profit by so much while others suffer by tremendous amounts due to government mandates. We therefore must say that the additional profits to large corporations such as Walmart and Amazon that have resulted from the government picking winners and losers must be sent to compensate completely and fully: 1) all business owners who have lost their business during the pandemic due in any way to government mandates; 2) all business owners who have suffered a loss of business volume and revenue during the pandemic due in any way to government mandates; and 3) all individuals who have lost their jobs or suffered a loss of income that is not otherwise been compensated doing any way to government mandates during the pandemic. Any additional loss must be made up out of the public treasury since the responsibility lies with the government. The public treasury comes in many societies from public taxation, and therefore this approach helps to spread the burden of paying for the pandemic as widely as possible and, especially through progressive taxation systems that are widely used, to place the majority of the burden on those who are most able to bear it and the least amount of the button on those who are least able to bear it. 

During any situation of danger in world history, wise approaches have always 1) understood the specific nature of danger and its actual risks in terms of probability; 2) understood the specific danger in context of all other dangers; and 3) sought solutions and risk mitigation approaches that minimise creating further dangers, risks, and problems, while maximising utility, minimising disutility, and minimising various forms of cost. It is Our sacred and moral duty and responsibility to promote such approaches, for such is also the responsibility of the civil state to the people in its care. In this present pandemic, We are greatly saddened that such approaches, though they have been employed in some areas, have widely been ignored in favour of approaches that do not use proportionate reason, logic, and calm, sober wisdom in determining responses. We must, therefore, further promote continued offerings of the Holy Mass and recitations of the Holy Rosary, which is indeed the very weapon that led to the Christian victory at the Battle of Lepanto, that the pandemic may end, government response until then may be appropriate and proportionate, bearing in mind all potential consequences of their actions beyond the novel coronavirus, and that all who have suffered at the hands of government around the world may be duly and rightly compensated completely.

Wednesday, November 18, 2020

Anglican Patriarchate Health Note: While Global Focus is on COVID, a Seemingly Deadlier Virus Emerges in Bolivia

By Keith, Duke of Westphalia, MD

Firenze-Nuova Roma 18 November 2020 (ORCNS)

A man in Bolivia.
Source: Pub. Dom.
While it seems that much of the world has developed a concerning, almost phobic tunnel vision regarding the novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), with ever expanding and sweeping series of health guidelines and activity restrictions; a new and potentially far more dangerous virus has emerged from the rain forests of South America. Recently, the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene announced the identification of a novel arenavirus capable of passing from vector host to human and then from human to human, causing a hemorrhagic fever syndrome, in La Paz, Bolivia. Chapare virus, the causative agent, had a cluster in 2019 infecting three healthcare workers and resulting in two fatalities.(1,2) 

The arenaviruses are a large group of viruses that typically affect rodents. Human zoonotic infection occurs when rodent contact is increased due either from environmental change, agricultural practice, or human presence. (1,2,3) The most familiar of the human disease causing arenaviruses include lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCMV) and the several hemorrhagic fever syndromes caused by Lassa virus (West Africa), Machupo, Junin, and Chapare viruses (South America). Common routes of infection include mucosal exposure to aerosols and direct contact with infectious material, with those at highest risk environmentally exposed to rodent excreta within their homes, at industrial or agricultural sites, or other places infested by rodents. Factors that tend to increase relative risk of adverse outcome include age, sex, degree of contact with rodent excreta, and comorbid conditions.(1,2,3,4)

Of note, a high degree of clinical suspicion is important to early identification and treatment; patients with early onset of symptoms typically present with a picture common to other viral disease processes such as Dengue, endemic to South America. The potential risk to the public health in such a misdiagnosis cannot be understated, as unlike Dengue, the capacity for human to human transfer with Chapere is concerning. Supportive therapy and early antiviral treatment with Ribavirin reduces morbidity and mortality in arenavirus infection, particularly Lassa and Junin -- though Ribavirin therapy is not without its risks and adverse effects, and if started late in disease progression, enjoys only mixed success.(4,5,6)

1. Gompf, SG; Smith, KM; Choe, U; Arenaviruses (May 2019)., accessed 17 November, 2020.
2. Radoshitzky, SR; Buchmeier, MJ; Charrel, RN; Clegg, JCS; Gonzalez, JJ; Günther, S; Hepojoki, J; Kuhn, JH; Lukashevich, IS; Romanowski, V; Salvato, MS; Sironi, M; Stenglein, MD; de la Torre, JC; ICTV Report, Consortium (August 2019). "ICTV Virus Taxonomy Profile: Arenaviridae". The Journal of General Virology. 100 (8): 1200–1201.
3. Botten, J; Whitton, JL; Barrowman, P; Sidney, J; Whitmire, JK; Alexander, J; Kotturi, MF; Sette, A; Buchmeier, MJ (2010). "A Multivalent Vaccination Strategy for the Prevention of Old World Arenavirus Infection in Humans". Journal of Virology. 84 (19): 9947–56.
4. Emonet, SE; Urata, S; De La Torre, JC (2011). "Arenavirus reverse genetics: New approaches for the investigation of arenavirus biology and development of antiviral strategies". Virology. 411 (2): 416–425.
5. Lee, AM; Pasquato, A; Kunz, S (2011). "Novel approaches in anti-arenaviral drug development". Virology. 411 (2): 163–169.
6. Mendenhall, M; Russell, A; Juelich, T; Messina, EL; Smee, DF; Freiberg, AN; Holbrook, MR; Furuta, Y; et al. (2010). "T-705 (Favipiravir) Inhibition of Arenavirus Replication in Cell Culture". Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 55 (2): 782–787.

Efforts of Bishops Help Ease Anti-Church Crackdowns by States

By Jean DuBois


As global civic leaders engage in a new round of questionable COVID-related restrictions, many have eased restrictions on churches and even granted some religious exemptions. This is in marked contrast to the extraordinarily stifling restrictions placed on religious groups around the world earlier in the pandemic. 

Many churches continue to stand empty due to
overstepping of authority by world leaders
during the COVID pandemic
Source: PubDom.

Although civic leaders wildly overstep their authority with any such restrictions over the Church, the newfound awareness on the part of civic leaders of the importance of religion during the pandemic and of church sovereignty is believed by many to be the direct result of staunch activism on the part of a number of religious leaders around the world. For example, Australia has indicated religious exemptions and eased restrictions on churches, as have many states in America, such as Nevada, Iowa, and Washington. Catholic Bishops of Minnesota, USA, among others, strongly opposed new crackdowns on religious activity. The Florentine Archfather issued a general opposition to world leaders' restrictions on the freedom of the church, and also specifically addressed several, including the Washington State governor, where restrictions have subsequently been eased. 

Meanwhile, the Catholic Bishops of the United Kingdom, led by Cardinal Nichols, have issued demands to the Government to produce evidence of justification as the Prime Minister issued an edict to close church public worship yet again. in the USA, the Bishop of Brooklyn has called New York's restriction on churches "outrageous." Restrictions on churches in New York have been successfully challenged in court.

Although much progress has been made in restoring the sovereign rights and freedom of the church during this pandemic, which can be attributed to the staunch, vocal, and ongoing efforts of bish bishops around the, there is still continued crackdowns against the church on the part of many civil states. The bishops will no doubt continue their efforts through pastoral persuasion, legal avenues, and legislative approaches.

Friday, November 13, 2020

The Petrine Office, Leonine Office, and the Anglican Patriarchate


In Christian Scripture, it was clearly expressed as Christ's will that Peter the Apostle was to be First Among Equals (also known as Prince of the Apostles) and exercise a prominent leadership role in the universal church (Catholic Church). Indeed, it was after Christ's death and Resurrection that Peter was to build the Church, along with the other Apostles. Our Lord bestowed the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven upon Peter, saying "Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam. Tibi dabo claves regni caelorum." ("Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church; unto thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 16.18). This is known as Papal Primacy, or the Petrine Office. 

St. Peter receives the key from Christ

The Florentine Archfather, Grand Pontiff of the Anglican Rite of the Universal Church and head of the New Roman Communion, as successor to Pope Leo X, holds what is known as the Leonine Office. That office is an extension of the Petrine Office, the primacy of the Pope, and shares in its authority within and regarding the jurisdiction of the Anglican Patriarchate and New Roman Communion. This is reflected in the Key of St. Peter and the Papal tiara included in the Archpatral Insignia, also known as the Leonine Insignia. Also, as temporal successor of the Popes from St. Peter the Apostle through Benedict XVI in Italy and Britain, the Florentine Archfather is Custodian of the Apostolic See of St. Mark in Aquileia, reflected in the Sword of St. Mark in the Archpatral Insignia.

The primacy of the Petrine Office and, by extension, the Leonine Office nevertheless carries with it a responsibility of continuity of doctrine and tradition. Valid and authentic rule must be indeed grounded in the Doctrine and Tradition of the Faith, of which the Pope, the Archfather, and all bishops are custodians. Proclamations, commandments, and so forth cannot rightly be imposed simply as a matter of desire or expediency. Yet it is all too common in the modern age to think that the leadership of the Church can indeed change the doctrine. Such is the sin of modernism, distorting the true theological meaning of primacy.

Pope Leo X
A Florentine Archfather (the ancient title of "Archipater" refers to a chief priest) is defined as one with secular patrimony in Florence and ecclesiastical patriarchal authority. The first four were Patriarchs of the West, i.e., Roman Archfathers/Roman Popes. (For the complete list of Florentine Archfathers, please follow this link. Pope Leo X was the first Florentine Archfather. The significance of Florence to papal primacy derives from the origins of papal claims to overlordship in Italy. The rule of Tuscany came to have the sovereign Vice-Kingship of Italy in the Holy Roman Empire. That was given by Matilda, Margravine of Tuscany, Vice-Queen of Italy to the Pope Pasquale II, at which point the papacy solidified its claim to overlordship over Italy. After the renunciation of the title of Patriarch of the West by Benedict XVI, the Bishop of St. Stephen, Anglo-Italian Imperial Patriarch was recognised as the closest ecclesiastical claimant to Italian patrimony by right of Rome in succession from Matilda of Tuscany, Pope Pasquale II, and Pope Leo X due to the Patriarchate's secular patrimony in Florence. Thus the Bishop of St. Stephen is known primarily as the Florentine Archfather, successor of Pope Leo X, and temporal successor of St. Peter the Apostle in Italy and Britain. Through that the Patriarchate is also the Custodian of the Apostolic See of Saint Mark at Aquileia and Grand Pontiff of the Anglican Rite of the Universal Church.

The New Roman Communion is defined as the Anglican Patriarchate and the churches of all Bishops recognised by the Patriarchate. It takes its name from the Florentine heritage of the Anglican Patriarchate, with Florence recognised as the second New Rome after Constantinople. Bishops of the New Roman Communion need not be of the Anglican Rite, but may be of any traditional Catholic Rite.

By authority of Rome, the Archfather speaks with the full voice and authority of the Pope within and regarding the jurisdiction of the Anglican Patriarchate and New Roman Communion. The Archfather holds Roman imperial dignity and co-imperial rank.

Primacy, in its leadership and teaching role and defence of the faith, must connect the Christian faithful in any particular age and location to the Christian faithful in all times and places. The entirety of the faith must be brought to mind, not just the issues of a particular time period or geographical location, for the Christian faith knows neither time nor space. That places the focus of Christian education indeed on reason and conscience, for indeed God is the Divine Logos, the source of all reason, logic, and order. Logic, analysed by reason and from which order flows, cannot be subjective, relativistic, or defined by about-changing social conformity. Therefore, Christian theology is not defined by mankind, relativism, or subjectivity. Rather, it is defined by God, brought to the world by Christ as the Incarnate Word, and defended by His Holy Church. That is the essence of the primacy of the Petrine Office and its extension by right of Rome, the Leonine Office.