European Court’s Assault on Christ’s Kingship Exposes Modernist Apostasy
The EWTN News portal (January 16, 2026) reports on the European Court of Human Rights considering the removal of Christian symbols from Greek public buildings. Two atheists initiated the case against icons in courtrooms, alleging discrimination and violation of “judicial objectivity” – claims rejected by Greek courts. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) intervenes with secular arguments about cultural heritage and “pluralism,” citing the court’s 2011 Lautsi v. Italy decision permitting crucifixes in classrooms as mere “cultural symbols.” This legal battle epitomizes Europe’s systemic rejection of Christus Rex‘s social reign.
The Grave Omission: Christ’s Divine Right Over Nations
The article’s fundamental error lies in reducing Christianity to cultural artifact rather than affirming the regalitas Christi (kingship of Christ) over all temporal authority. Pius XI’s encyclical Quas Primas (1925) dogmatically declares: “Nations will be reminded by the annual celebration of this feast that not only private individuals but also rulers and princes are bound to give public honor and obedience to Christ.” The defense’s focus on “historical significance” constitutes blasphemous minimalism, tacitly accepting the court’s naturalistic presumption that states exist independently of divine authority.
False Neutrality as State Apostasy
ADF’s argument that icons “do not impose belief” constitutes implicit acceptance of religious indifferentism condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors (1864): “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true” (Error 15). The European Court operates on precisely this heretical foundation, treating atheism as equally valid to Christianity – a direct violation of the extra Ecclesiam nulla salus principle. As Leo XIII taught in Immortale Dei (1885), states must “officially recognize the Catholic religion as the religion of the State,” making all legal arguments based on “neutrality” intrinsically revolutionary.
Naturalistic Presuppositions in Judicial Reasoning
The plaintiffs’ claim that icons “compromise judicial objectivity” reveals Enlightenment rationalism’s corrupting influence. This presupposes:
- Human judgment operates independently of divine illumination (contra Psalm 126:1: “nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem, frustra vigilat qui custodit eam” – “unless the Lord guards the city, the guard keeps watch in vain”)
- Religious truth claims are subjective opinions rather than ontological realities
- The state derives authority from popular consent rather than divine mandate
Such errors were anathematized by St. Pius X in Lamentabili Sane (1907), which condemned the proposition that “Truth changes with man, because it develops with him, in him, and through him” (Error 58).
ADF’s Inadequate Defense: Compromise With Modernism
ADF’s reliance on “cultural heritage” arguments constitutes cowardly accommodation, ignoring the raison d’ĂȘtre of religious symbols: to manifest Christ’s dominion. Their brief cites European states displaying crucifixes as cultural artifacts – precisely the secularization Pius XI condemned when warning against those who “would have Jesus be King without a kingdom” (Quas Primas). The defense fails to cite Greece’s constitutional obligation to preserve Orthodoxy (Article 3), nor does it invoke the Corpus Christianum principle requiring states to suppress public heresy (Code of Justinian, Book 1, Title 5).
Theological Consequences of Symbolic Removal
The systematic eradication of Christian symbols constitutes satanic inversion of Exodus 20:4 (“non facies tibi sculptile… non adorabis ea neque coles” – “you shall not make carved idols… you shall not worship or serve them”). By removing icons of Christ and saints while permitting secular idolatry (LGBT flags, “climate justice” symbols), courts enact what St. Augustine called “civitas diaboli” (City of the Devil). This follows the conciliar sect’s abandonment of Dignitatis Humanae‘s false religious liberty, which Paul VI’s regime used to justify state apostasy.
Historical Precedent of Catholic Resistance
Greece’s Orthodox leaders would do well to emulate Catholic confessors like St. Thomas More, who declared before his martyrdom: “I die the king’s good servant, but God’s first.” When Henry VIII demanded removal of papal symbols, More recognized this as spiritual treason. Today’s “Union of Atheists” case constitutes similar rebellion against divine order, demanding what Bellarmine called “haereticorum summum desiderium” (heretics’ ultimate desire) – expulsion of God from public life.
The ECHR’s impending decision will test whether Greece chooses Constantine’s labarum or Judas’ thirty pieces of silver. As the Cristero martyrs proved, when courts command apostasy, Catholics must obey Christ’s warning: “Quae enim participatio iustitiae cum iniquitate? Aut quae societas luci ad tenebras?” (2 Corinthians 6:14 – “For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?”).
Source:
Christian symbols in public buildings on trial before European Court of Human Rights (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 16.01.2026