304 thoughts on “The 5 Most Perfect Prayers Of The Christian Tradition”

1. Good stuff. Honorable mention to the Ave Maris Stella.

   1. Funda nos in pace, mutans nomen Evae.

2. Excellent article. I really enjoy reading/listening to Psalms as there’s always a prayer for what is going on in my life. I feel the need to start going through then again.

   1. This is why I like the psalms, as well; it seems that no matter which psalm I pray, it always resonates with some element within me.
      You may like learning to pray the Office; one chants through many psalms, interspersed with antiphons, prayers, hymns, brief Scripture readings, etc. But, of course, just meditating on them is already a very great thing.

   2. I particularly like the wisdom in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. A chapter of Proverbs and One of Psalms a day. One inspires our heart towards God, the other, towards greater responsibility in our own lives
      Seeing something like this for instance “Love not sleep, lest thou comest to poverty”.
      Only had t read it once for it to stick, forever. No alarms needed to jump up daily now.

      1. I do enjoy Proverbs as well. I think Proverbs and Psalms are two of my favorite books in the Bible. Might need to take up that practice of one a day for each as well. Thanks for the idea.

      2. You can add the books of Wisdom and Ecclesasticus to those.

         1. Never heard of those. Just Googled them now. Thanks for the suggestion anyway.

   3. jesus doesnt exist. u really believe theres some ghost in the sky? moron.

      1. Holy shit! My eyes have been opened by some random troll on the internet who graced my unassuming comment with what is no doubt one of his most prized nuggets of wisdom. If only I had heard this sage advice sooner in my life, I could have began living my nihilistic life at a younger age! Bless you, good sir – I mean! – have a good day….
         ….dumbfuck

         1. All the spirituality or hope of jesus or anything else existing beyond reality has to do with chemicals in your brain. You’ve never felt, heard, or seen god so why do you think it’s true? Because you were born into that religion. And shocker-people born into other religions will claim their religion is the one true one! Fact is-there may be something out there but it sure as hell isn’t jesus. or allah. or all those hindu gods. or anything little humans claim with such fervor is true.

         2. And my beliefs affect you how exactly? What’s next? We going to argue about which color is best because I’m going to argue green hands down. Get a life troll.

         3. The thing I notice about you jesus dick suckers is this-as soon as someone proves you wrong you change the subject. I have proof and you don’t. Its fun to watch you struggle because you know damn well deep down I’m right. I could care less what color you like best because colors exist! Its irritating for me, however,when dummies go on and on about some made up ghost. You’re mental sanity seems limited given you have thus far denied all evidence against your case. You’re brainwashed.

         4. It’s irritating for us to go on and on but you specifically entered this article about prayer and scrolled down until you found my comment….the troll is strong in this one.

         5. I have learned never to waste time with anti-theist trolls (not to be confused with actual atheists who I have found to be quite reasonable). They are nothing more than colorblind individuals who, screaming that they can’t see the color green, it must mean nobody else can see the color either.

         6. Eh, I had a little time to kill…plus it’s fun to point out their own idiocy.
            “Urgh!! I hate listening to you guys babble about your religion!”
            “Then why did you click on this article?”

         7. I have always marveled why anti-theists think more about God than I do, and I am professionally employed by a Christian nonprofit.

         8. It is a bit of a strange phenomenon, isn’t it? Granted, they are able to ponder on whatever they want, but what really baffles me is why they always feel the need to interject with their snide comments in articles that don’t even warrant it:
            Article was on some of Christianity’s greatest prayers…not why Christianity is SOOO much greater than atheism , or something to that effect.
            My original comment was how I liked a book of the Bible…again, nothing to do with how atheism sucks or yada yada yada.
            Yet, it never fails that some atheist arse-face interjects with some inflammatory attack on my beliefs because….reasons. I wonder if this is the manifestation of a mental illness or merely a narcissistic personality that is craving attention and is getting it by lashing out. Poor dear needs our prayers.

         9. “An atheist can never seem to forgive God for not existing.”

         10. I have seen atheists go on Muslim-Christian debates and lament with a straight face that there wasn’t an Atheist in there to offer a non-theistic perspective.

3. Cui Pertinebit strikes again! Well done, brother, as always.

   1. Most excellent. Although I enjoy the youtube links to latin prayers / chants / music / etc in his older articles.

   2. Gratias permultas, Quinte benevolens.

      1. Heu, non necesse est ut tibi gratiam agas, fratre…sua vox est magnifica vero vox, et magno viro ac sapiente digna.

   3. I was wondering ,,how come we finally brought God into the manosphere and yet the most fitted commenter ( Cui Pertinebit ) is absent from this ?”. Now you reveal the root contributor of theological works from the manosphere. Thank you gentlemen for the work you’re doing. I will be taking a look into the Psalms.

4. I realize that there are many prayers for the Act of Contrition and a Prayer to St. Michael, but I think they ought to be included. I was told that praying the Act of Contrition every day is good for developing a holy frame of mind, and praying for St. Michael’s protection from Satan certainly doesn’t hurt and probably might be necessary in our day and age.

   1. Very true, and I give a link to more than one source for such prayers in the article I’m preparing for the hermitage’s website this week… if I can get the bill paid and have the site up and running in the next day or so!

5. I’ll buy my first rosary from that website.
   http://www.cordbands.com/

   1. Are you a French Catholic? I visited Vanne a few years ago and I inadvertently stumbled into the main Cathedral during the funeral of a significant notary (ex mayor of the town I recall) and I stayed on through the service out of respect. I have to admit, even though my French is not particularity proficient, the service was profound and moving and provided me with a very different prism into which I could see the shards and fragments of the faith I was brought up in. It’s interesting how Catholicism can have a very different spirit across the regions of the world, how it can almost be more relevant than in your own context?

      1. I would describe myself as a Catholic at heart only, since for now I’m not even baptized (I come from a good but deeply atheist family…).
         I’m going to make my first step toward the Society of Saint Pius X during the following week.

         1. Best of luck. I’m not very religious anymore, I’ve still too many questions, but, I keep an open mind, perhaps it’s more the sensibility rather than the strict belief which means more to me these days?

         2. You know the Pope just accepted homosexuality into your religion right?

         3. He ain’t the pope.

         4. Protegat et custodiat te sacratissima Virgo Maria, et Filio suo immaculatum de regenerationis lavacro te offerat.
            It’s considered a great privilege to have a newly-baptized person say a prayer for you in the first few moments after his baptism; would you be so kind as to remember me then? In the meantime, my prayers go with you through Lent – is the goal to baptize you this Easter?

         5. Something true, holy and good will make demands, not from pettiness, but from the very nature of its greatness.

         6. Yes, that’s my hope. I’ll pray for you when it happens. Thank you for your email, by the way.

         7. I feel like I should be apologizing to you for that email, rather than receiving your thanks!
            Thanks for the prayers. I’m glad beyond words that you’ll soon be baptized. May God grant you final perseverance, through the Blessed Virgin’s merits and prayers.

6. As a lapsed Catholic, I still admire the tradition of prayers that used to apply during the course of a holy day, especially vespers in the evening.

   1. But Vespers happens every day! 😉

      1. Great article. I light up whenever I see you have made a contribution to RoK.
         However I will say I’m having some difficulty opening your inchoate blog. Could you verify that the proper link is given? Thank you.

         1. It is, and I’m having trouble with it. Hopefully it will be back up soon.

      2. In a monastery perhaps…..!

7. You always teach me something new when I read these. I enjoy them because as of late I’ve been getting caught up in the “game ” part of this site . But every am falters , if he does not he is lying to himself .I don’t have a rosary but two things I would consider similar . A necklace with the “helm of awe ” on it a friend made for me and a knife with the same carved into the handle .

8. I read ‘Lamentations’ in the old testament last week. The parallels to Europe and USA were incredible. Blew my mind.

   1. Lamentations and Ecclesiastes are two books that are oft overlooked, yet between them they describe the passage of every civilization.

      1. That’s interesting. Catholics in school tend not to study the OT to the same degree as Protestants.

         1. Catholics understand.

         2. See, my experience has been the opposite. Many Protestants tend to proof-text a few passages, mostly from St. Paul’s epistles, and don’t read even the Gospels, let alone the Old Testament, in continuous succession. My time as an Evangelical certainly involved a lot of people highlighting lots of one-three verse passages in Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians.
            But any traditional Catholic who pays attention to the liturgical year, reads the Saints and Fathers, or, most of all, prays the Office, will absorb lots of Old Testament material. Lots of New Testament material as well, of course, including a much more steady diet of the Four Gospels.

         3. Peter Kreeft (though I’m not much of a fan) once quipped that Protestants often know the Bible the way the postman knows your neighborhood. That pretty much sums up my experience with the issue.

   2. That’s the peculiar notion I cannot always understand among people who are sincerely much more ardent believers than I, and, it relates back to the Old Testament which is quintessentially Jewish in it’s entirety and origin, like the Book of Lamentations. If your relationship with your faith is heavily imbued with the Old Testament its difficult to ignore the Jewish element in Christianity, yet, a lot of people of Christians are hostile to Jews, perhaps because of the crime they committed against Jesus. Yet, oddly their crime led to His sacrifice and paradoxically to our salvation even though Christ was a Jew Himself.
      It’s a very peculiar and puzzling notion that’s not even really susceptible to logical scrutiny, but, perhaps that’s why you have faith? But, what is it faith in- the entire Bible?

      1. because jewish bankers are fucking over the goyim in the present. along with jews promoting non-white immigration to destroy white countries, whilst Israel requires a DNA test to prove you’re jewish ancestry to emigrate there. That’s why jews are a problem. oh and it’s mostly Jews pushing feminism, we all know how damaging that is.

         1. But, it still seems to be a defining part of Christianity.

      2. In the Talmud, the laws permit; therefore, encourage deception of goyim for the benefit of Judaism.

         1. I studied a fair amount of theological traditions while at university. Buddism, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam were all covered in my classes. I had one professor who was a rabbi and was pushing for conversion in his rhetoric, not something you’d expect from the tribe. However, he hinted at his strategy throughout the class. Making smart whites have babies with Jewish girls because they believe that the mother passes on the Jew to her children. They sit at less than 2% of the population and they’re looking for intelligent sperm donations. Simply another deception. In fact, having sex to further the accomplishments of your race is appluaded by the talmud as well. Catholics know better, they (used to?) have the same sort of self-preservation culture without the element of deception. This fact alone is why God chose them over the jews.

         2. And Catholicism unlike Judaism isn’t based purely on ethnicity either, except if you’re Sammy Davis Junior- which was the oddest conversion ever.

         3. Well, it makes sense when you look at its history. Faith is immutable, people change skin colors over the years with inter-breeding. Modern day Catholics are diverse in color but the same in faith to those in the Roman Era.

         4. Even though Jews are famous for never evangelizing I’ve had it happen to me a couple of times too. Weird.

      3. Ah, but, let us not forget that Jesus forgave everyone for what happened to him when he was on the cross. To me, it is the ultimate insult to his consummate and pure sacrifice to blame it or to hate anyone because of it.

         1. Yes, unless we blame ourselves in a spirit of repentance.

         2. That’s a very considerate insight- captures the true essence of Christianity.

      4. I’m not sure where you’re having difficulties with the logic. The Church has always put this at the center of our Faith:
         “O certe necessárium Adæ peccátum, quod Christi morte delétum est! O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere Redemptorem.” This is from the Exultet of the Paschal Vigil – amidst the most sacred moments in all the year. “O truly necessary sin of Adam, which is blotted out by the death of Christ! O happy fault, which merited to have such and so great a Redeemer!” It is speaking of how the Fall itself led to the Redemption, which is so far greater than the Fall that one almost would regret if the Fall had not occurred, so great was God’s power to superabundantly correct evil.
         Read the beginning of Tolkien’s Silmarillion, for an excellent meditation on this notion, that God best shows the perfection of His work by wresting the greatest goods out of the most evil misdeeds, proving His superiority in creative power over the void of the abyss. As St. Augustine said: Melius enim iudicavit de malis benefacere, quam mala nulla esse permittere – “for [God] judged it to be better to bring good from evils, than to permit no evils to exist.”
         The Church has also been very clear that God shows, in the history of the Jewish people, the depths of perfidy in the human heart. Rather than choosing them because they were the best people, it is likely that He may have chose them because they were the worst, who most clearly show man’s venality. To bring the best from the worst is God’s calling card, as it were, and it seems that this has always been the piety of the Church, as exemplified in an old, Marian antiphon:
         Ad nutum Domini nostrum ditantis honorem,
         Sicut spina rosam genuit, Judæa Mariam,
         Ut vitium virtus operiret, gratia culpam.
         (“At the command of the Lord Who bestows our honor,
         As a thorn-bush bears the rose, so did Jewry bear Mary,
         That virtue might cover vice, and grace might bury blame.”)

      5. The apocalypse warns us about fake Jews from the synagogue of Satan. In my understanding, those are the globalist Jews who are pushing an evil agenda and who brought us feminism, communism, and many other horrors. And many American and Israleli ”Jews” are atheists. They have nothing in common with the Jews from the Ancient Testament.

         1. The would-be assassin of Karol Wojtyla also hinted that the Third Secret of Fatima (the part not yet revealed) might speak rather bluntly about the Antichrist and modern Jewry – which, if true, would certainly explain why the apostate syncretists in the Vatican refuse to publish it.

         2. Off topic, but what is your opinion on the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox communions and their relationship to the Catholic church?

         3. I get this question so often, I need to write up a standard response. If you want, I can send you an answer I just gave to some other men, but it’s not my best work, since I don’t have a lot of time to fully address the question at present. If you tell me an email address, I’ll send it along.

         4. [email protected]

      6. It might be easier if you think of Second Temple Judaism as giving rise to two separate and intrinsically antagonist institutions: the Church and Rabbinical Judaism. Each think themselves the true heirs of God’s promise.
         The problem is mostly a semantic one. The modern state of Israel is not the Biblical Israel though they share the same name, just as modern Talmudists are not true children of Abraham. Christians are. You may not agree but that has always been the orthodox position.
         You’re not the first person to be confused by all this. Judaizing was the first heresy and with the likes of Hagee, it looks like it’s a popular modern one too.
         I’ll let cui or someone else handle the Old Testament objection.
         Isn’t this a great site? Only on ROK can I have theological discussion on one article after having read that there is a massive conspiracy of canine bestiality among women in the article immediately prior.

         1. That’s very illuminating. My knowledge of Hebraic history isn’t that detailed or broad, so, your comment has been very helpful.

         2. No worries. If you or anyone else wants a good book on the subject I’d recommend The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit by E. Michael Jones. It is both long and controversial but it avoids the silly conspiracy theories often employed by critics of Judaism and the sycophantic praise used by Christian Judeophiles.
            It’s also exclusively non-racial since Jones explicitly states that once a Jew converts he is not a Jew anymore and points out that converts are often the most zealous Christians (Torquemada was born a Jew for example). In a nutshell Jones says that Judaism at base is the denial of Logos, the ordering principle of the world embodied by Christ, and this has given rise to twenty centuries of mutual hatred between Jews and Christians.
            If you want to hear the Jewish perspective on their odd influence on European culture especially in the last hundred years The Jewish Century by Yuri Slezkine covers a lot of the same ground, but it is sometimes a little hard to take the self congratulatory tone.

         3. “that Judaism at base is the denial of Logos” Hmm, that’s interesting food for thought. Thanks.

      7. “Old Testament its difficult to ignore the Jewish element in Christianity, yet, a lot of people of Christians are hostile to Jews, perhaps because of the crime they committed against Jesus” I think a major flaw with your reasoning is that you believe Judaism today is the Judaism of the Old Testament.
         “Yet, oddly their crime led to His sacrifice and paradoxically to our salvation even though Christ was a Jew Himself.” People don’t hate the Jews because they are Jews, they hate Judaism and Jewish influence.

         1. “People don’t hate the Jews because they are Jews, they hate Judaism and Jewish influence” But, they’re practically inseparable.

         2. Ik, but practically and completely different. For an example, there are plenty of anti Zionist Jews and there are Jews turned Christian who fully reject post Jesus Judaism.

         3. Zionism and Judaism can be quite separate and much antisemitism is a reaction to the former without realizing it.

         4. Yes, but Zionism is just an example of negative Jewish influence. Another example of a Jew against Judaism’s bad influence is The Apostle Paul/Saul of Tarsus, and actually even Jesus is a great example of what I am talking about.

   3. You may also enjoy this Redemptorist priest’s meditation on the modern devastation of the Church and Western culture, by an extended comparison with the Babylonian captivity:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YPLBGQzQKI

9. Well said. I had not thought of the Creeds as prayers before, but it makes a lot of sense.
   If you are overwhelmed by the notion of praying all the time (as most are), the best practice is to start small:
   On waking up: “Lord, blessed is the day that You have made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it.”
   On starting work: “Bless the work of my hands, O Lord, that they might be tribute to you.”
   On eating: “Thank you, Lord, for meat and drink.”
   At any time: “Thanks be to God.”
   On going to sleep: “Thank you, Gracious Lord, for this day. Grant me rest, and prepare me for the morrow.”
   As your mind and spirit become sanctified, longer prayers and deeper meditations will come from the Spirit.
   Grace and Peace to all God’s People.

   1. Exceedingly excellent observations.

10. Spectacles, testicles, wallet, and watch.

11. I’m glad the Our Father went at the top. It’s just about the best formulaic prayer there is (and my favorite) because it covers all the important topics, and in the right order. And it is beautiful to say in Latin, if you can.

    1. My mother learned the Latin Paternoster in Mexico when she was young, before Vatican II. I’ve tried to learn it myself, but as it turns out, Latin is hard to learn, even for anyone who knows at least one Romance language. Yet, there’s a poetic sound to it that just makes it pleasing to the ears.

       1. I have only a small smattering of Latin myself, and would not presume to claim to speak it. But being lucky enough to attend the Latin Mass for most of my life, I have been exposed to the language a lot, and pretty much just memorized the Our Father in Latin. I would like to study Latin in depth, but I don’t have the means to do so at the moment.

          1. Ecce Romani was a great set of books. Probably can find them cheap (and used) on ebay/ amazon.
             mulier [woman]: salve quid agis hodie [greetings, how you do (are you doing) today?]
             vir [man]: bene gratis tibi et tu [well, thanks to you, and you?]
             mulier [woman]: nescio (nes scio) [I don’t know]
             * the begining of an interaction with a Roman woman on her period.

          2. Wheelock’s Latin is a brilliant (perhaps the finest) text book to learn Latin from. I studied the “dead language” out of pure pleasure two evenings a week in University a few years back and when you’re in a group where you have to articulate texts from Seneca or Virgil it profoundly boosts your mastery of it. Latin for too long was read in silence in later times, so, it’s wonderful to actually speak it as a living language as it gives you a sense and scent of what the Roman world must have been like. Also, studying Latin greatly improves your versatility and range in English, so it well worth the effort.

          3. Arma virumque cano (!)

          4. Audaces fortuna iuvat !

          5. Dido is the ultimate Alpha widow. Might write an article about it.

          6. Plus Ultra bitches! Lol

          7. You’d be surprised at how easily you can pick it up, if you practice reading it while you study with a good, instructional manual. Some people swear by Wheelock’s, but I always hated it; if you’re like me and Wheelock’s just didn’t float your boat, try:
             “Latin: an Intensive Course,” by Moreland and Fleischer. I found that text to have a smooth, rational progression. I already kind of new Latin when I used that book, but I thought it was smooth sailing.

          8. It’s a good red-pill text, when you think about it: “saeve memorem Junonis ob iram.” The man left his mark on Dido, as well.

          9. Is it blue pill that I always felt bad for Dido?

    2. Always Latin, Latin …!

       1. ex tempore

       2. God help me, Quintus, I so often feel like a traitor. I should love Latin most of all, but I am often forced to admit against my will that the Greek is better. The Lord’s Prayer and the Creed both have a simultaneous elegance and potent cadence, in the Greek.

          1. No worries, Aurele…attaining Greek itself is such an achievement, and she is such a jealous mistress, that she needs no competition.

          2. There is no Holy language- Pray the Πατέρ ἡμῶν in whichever tongue brings you closest to God.

    3. I agree with you. The Lord’s Prayer had to be at the top of the list. It came straight from Christ’s mouth, as the answer, when His disciples asked Him to teach them to pray.
       Now, I have to give you a bit of a friendly ribbing.
       Us memorizing such a prayer in Latin might be the equivalent of a Japanese person learning it in English (maybe because they might have been converted through the ministry of English speaking missionaries).
       There is nothing wrong with it, but there is nothing special about it either.
       The prayer was originally written in Greek (and the Lord probably originally said it in Aramaic). There is better reason for saying it in Greek or Aramaic, than in Latin.

       1. I see your point! But I have attended the Latin Mass for many years, so it kind of goes with being Catholic.

12. First image: a bunch of landwhales praying. I scroll down the article. Bottom of it: “read more: Atheists are fatties”. Only in ROK.

    1. Awesome observation. To this day, every time someone here mentions fat white women with short hair, either that image, or the local redneck trailer trash comes to mind.

    2. Yes, the image of land whales praying was deliberate; the “spontaneous, living” prayer at my Evangelical gathering usually looked like that: mediocre people praying for mediocre things in mediocre words, over and over and over….
       Christianity should save a man from something like that.

       1. I used to say the Lord’s prayer every night but slowly got out of that because it wasn’t “spontaneous” and therefore couldn’t be sincere. Your post has given me a different viewpoint on prayer. Much appreciated.

          1. Yes, having grown up a Protestant, all the various sects have their own tradition of repetitious prayer, each not varying very much from the other. The article’s example of one is extremely fitting.
             Another example would be a prayer for blessing of food, always containing some reference of “…for the nourishment of our bodies”, etc.

          2. Excellent!

          3. And remember, meditating on the Our Father, and reading ancient Christian commentaries on it, can give the prayer a great deal more meaning. Then, every time you repeat it, the fruits of meditation and reflection can come back to you.

    3. Yeah, that was priceless.

13. Great article. I believe you touched upon some important points in paragraph about spontaneous vs Liturgical worship. Christianity at its core is a Liturgical faith, and denominations which deny that usually pay a very steep price.

    1. Very true.

14. Long have I remembered yet not heard those prayers, yet the power in them is still present.
    Thank you Cui Pertinebit.

15. I have always loved the breastplate of St. Patrick.
    “I bind unto myself today, the strong name of the Trinity”
    How can one not love a prayer that starts out like a heavy metal song?

    1. That is a great prayer; it used to be one of my morning prayers for each day.

16. Hail Mary is “Christian”? What has Maryolatry to do with the Bible or Christianity?
    When will people again realise – as may did during the Reformation – that Popery has nothing to do with the biblical doctrine of salvation through reliance on the redemptive work of Christ alone? Its ritualistic prayers and mother goddess worship are an abomination to the Lord, even more so than the religion of the false prophet of the desert is.
    Desperately ignorant, clueless article…. You should stick to exposing feminism.

    1. Catholics believe that we are saved by grace, through faith; no deeds done by fallen man could merit the “payment” or “reward” of eternal life, but still, “faith without deeds is dead.”
       The Hail Mary is taken straight from the Bible (Gospel of Luke, 1st chapter).
       I used to be a Protestant Evangelical. The fact, is that the Catholic Faith nowhere contradicts Scripture – rather, it recorded and established the canon of Scripture. Once I studied a bit of history, it was clear to me that the first Christians were Catholics. Besides, since the Bible nowhere teaches “Scripture alone,” the doctrine is not off to a very good start.

       1. What would Jesus say about calling men “Father” or even “Holy Father?”

          1. Well, when He was making a rhetorical point in the common idiom of His Jewish audience, He might utterly forbid it, just as He might order men to chop off their hands or only pray in closets or not have a care for the future.
             Since the Apostle Paul refers to himself as a father in Christ to other Christians (and calls many other men “fathers,” besides), and since he commands Christians to be subject to their teachers (even though Jesus said “call no man teacher,” too), we see that the Bible itself does not take Jesus’ words in an overly narrow sense.
             And, in my experience, most people who do want to take them in such a sense, still call their own dads “father” (even though Jesus said “NO man!”), and they happily refer to their teachers as teachers, and even use the titles of “Mr.” and “Dr.” – “Mr.” is an abbreviation of “magister” (“teacher”) and “doctor” is another Latin term for “teacher.” In other words, I find that such persons, like the Apostles themselves, don’t take that statement too literally, either – but they nevertheless often adapt a double-standard and cite those verses against those who hold the Apostolic Faith.

          2. Testify Brava!! No Father but God Hisself!!
             Amen!!

17. I Am a recent convert to Catholicism. I know all the things Protestants are taught about the Church. It is very incomplete. Do a little research and you’ll be surprised. By the way, the Hail Mary is scriptural. Read the story of Mary visiting her cousin Elizabeth.

18. I’ve been Catholic all my life (baptised in 2nd grade), but did go into a period of atheism/agnosticism. However, I feel as though religion is spirituality (which I have faith in) set to a moral code, and Catholicism has definitely affected my morals as I’ve grown (I believe I may still lack the concept of compassion if it weren’t ingrained into me through faith), and if I see a holy spirit as the backbone of our universe, I don’t see why I can’t embrace the organization of church and introduce it to any offspring I produce, especially if it keeps any inherited moral problems in check.

19. Great article overall, as usual. Even so, this is Catholic tradition and not Christianity in general. Many biblical Christians believe that the Hail Mary is anti-Christian since it assumes a mediator between man and God. Jesus died to eliminate such a mediator. The Holy Spirit is basically your own personal Jesus, direct access to God himself. A relationship with God is one that entails (personalized) prayers and supplications directly to him.

    1. Christians ask the blessed Virgin to help them and pray for them, the same way we would anyone else to; just as this does not turn your neighbor into the Mediator between God and man, neither does it turn Mary into such a Mediatrix. What is meant by Christ’s office as Mediator, is that only He was capable of atoning perfectly for the sins of man and obtaining salvation. This is all perfectly clear in context, since St. Paul begins that passage by asking Christians to pray on behalf of others and, when he mentions the unique Mediation of Christ, clearly links this to the Redemption: “For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times.”
       The anti-Scriptural belief that no other person can play a role – even an authoritative role – in one’s salvation is contradicted by many plain passages of the New Testament, such as those that command believers to be subject to the Church, and to Ecclesiastical prelates and teachers. Moreover, the New Testament speaks in more than one place of one Christian “saving” another by his counsel and/or deeds.
       Of course, there is a sense in which Mary played an essential role in bridging the gap between God and man, since the God-man took from her the human nature, in which He would redeem mankind. Thus, it is quite true to say that salvation came to man through the Virgin, and that for all of eternity the “mother of the King” will remain the Blessed Virgin Mary. But, as a mere mortal, she was not capable of bridging the gap between God and man, and so is not the One Mediator between God and man; that is only her Son.
       Catholics remain confident that nothing in their tradition is “unbiblical,” let alone Anti-Christian. But, those are old debates!

       1. I understand your position, but this too is Catholic dogma. I only mention this to begin with because of the title of the article and so that any newcomers may understand that there is an entirely different and highly credible view on Christian prayer. Following up on my comment above, even the words of Jesus himself, on the matter of teaching people how to pray, reveal a prayer directly to God.

          1. Of course. I will point out that, during Jesus’ lifetime, obviously the dead were still languishing in captivity. But after His resurrection, the souls of the blessed were liberated from Sheol/Hades, and a new way of relating to them was possible. Up until the time of Christ, the Jews knew no other method of prayer, than direct prayer to God; in Christ, we have that, plus a connection to the whole Body of Christ, including the faithful departed, in a way that did not exist before Christ’s Resurrection and establishment of the Church.
             But already in the New Testament, we read St. Paul’s discourse on the holy ascetics and martyrs who now watch us and give us an example – “a great cloud of witnesses” – and we see, in the Revelation to St. John, the martyrs under the altar who see what transpires on the Earth and pray to God, as well as the angels who bear up the prayers of men on earth to God.
             Also, the earliest Christian writings show that the first generation of Christians after the Apostles already had the well-established practice of venerating the relics of the martyrs and celebrating the Eucharist over their relics on the anniversaries of their matryrdoms. So, unless we are to believe that the gates of hell immediately prevailed over the Church, all across the world, in the same way, immediately after the Apostles’ deaths, I would say that there is ample reason to believe that a desire to seek the support of the whole Church in prayer – including those Christians whose souls already stand before God with clear sight – is rooted in Apostolic Faith and preaching.

          2. My biggest objection to Protestantism has always been historical. Who were the Christians between the Apostles and the Reformers? It’s completely demonstrable through the reading of the fathers that Luther and Calvin’s doctrines were innovations and things Protestants later rejected, like Mary’s position of receiving veneration and the intercession of the Saints, are attested as fully developed practices in the second century centuries before Constantine. Regarding the cult of the Saints, many pagans often castigated Christians as worshipping the dead. An obvious misunderstanding, but it shows that the practice of veneration of Saints was ubiquitous among early Christians. Keep researching and you’ll find bibliolatry, as Belloc called it, doesn’t have a leg to stand on. I think of mdern Protestantism as being like a multiple amputee: he’s still a man but he’s tragically deformed and incomplete.
             Oh and when you argue with Catholics and write “this is only Catholic tradition and dogma” know that all they read is “this is the truth.” (jk)

20. FYI, http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/b012rpLatin_Rosary.htm

    1. Great site.

21. There is no God but Allah. Stop worshiping jesus(peace be upon him) who was prophet and a man, worship only He who is One. I was an atheist before I learnt about the sharia and justice of Islam and it is the best way of life for all humans , Muslims or non muslims. All non muslims are allowed to live under khilafah and will be protected under the shariah. Stop living and sacrificing your live for man made laws and the profit of global elite. Islam will destroy the global banking elite and will bring justice to the entire world, because how can you fight those who do not live for worldly gain., how can you fight those who love death more than life.
    The whole world is against the Muslims and although they were a minority they couldn’t be defeated in Afghanistan. And now they rose up to conquer Iraq and syria. And within a 100 year’s it will be the while world, Inshaallah.

    1. So, you admit that Islam is one with “the global elite”? Both groups are attempting to “bring justice to the entire world”.
       I don’t trust anything that wants to give me “justice”.

       1. The global elite are against Islam and tawhid (pure monothiesm). We don’t want give you justice. But want the laws of Allah to be above all others because it is just and following pure laws will disallow curroption to manifest. Islam forbids interest , but the global elite control the entire world through the world bank. They gain wealth using other people’s money and they use this wealth to oppress others. This is haram. Wealth belongs to the people in the form of gold silver and copper. Not in the form of paper.

          1. I will agree, world leaders are against any school of thought or religion that allows man to live fully, while being independent of the economic net that the global elites have tossed over the world.

          2. You know I was a Jehovahs witness but I became an atheist when I was 17 around the same time I came upon the redpill. Then I started following Rok because I believe in all the conservative and traditional principals because it promoted ideas that were good for overall society. Then I was also learning about Islam and the shariah of Allah to better understand the Muslims because I saw them as “terrorists” who had to be stopped(know your enemy and all that). But when I learned about it I realised they were upon the path that was just. They are the only ones in this world who fight against the world powers who are injust opressors. And you know the media is lying about them. Look at how they lied about rosh and the meetup and imagine what lies they are making up about Islam and the khilafah. Think about it. We don’t want you to become muslim. a non muslim who lives under shariah and is paying jizya will be the best guests in khilahaf. If they are being attacked and oppressed by other Muslims, the mujahideen will fight the oppressors on their behalf. We honestly don’t want to force you to do anything. But we want the law of God to be enforced. The cutting of the thief’s hand, stoning of the adulterer, marriage laws, the protection of the rights of the women and widows. From economics to fighting to the use of tax money to war there are laws for it.
             Many people think Islam is what the Saudis follow but the Saudis are thaghut (impure )and don’t enforce the shariah except when it benefits them. They are munafiqs(hypocrites) and they are the worst.

          3. Yes, the Catholic Church has always forbidden usury, as well; the global elite has succeeded in infiltrating the Church and destroying the unity of Christian civilization through the Protestant rupture and the subsequent, rapid dilution (and banishment) of Christian morality and faith from public life. And I have no doubt that much of the fight with the Islamic world at present, aims at ensuring that no economy on earth is free from their manipulation.
             My Faith tells me, however, that the elite will probably succeed in this aim, before the tide turns against them.

          4. Well the elite will be victorious for the nonbelivers, because the laws of the elite are pleasurable for the nonbelievers but oppressive for the muslims. But the resistance will always be with the muslims. We refuse to live in the humiliation of dar AL kufr ( land of disbelief) and you can see the result of the Arab spring has given opportunity for the rise of Khalifa and the taking back of all Muslims lands. Your invited to live under khilafah even if your a non muslim. So don’t worry you can also enjoy the justice of the shariah even if you have another belief.
             Edit: I forgot to add , under shariah you can also have your own courts that are based upon your own faith as long as they handle the affairs of your own community and don’t interfere with muslims.

          5. I know that there have been other forms of Islam, historically, that were less… irksome than some of the modern Salafist/Wahabist/Extremist groups of today. I can appreciate the sincerity of your new religious experience. But, historically, living under Sharia as a non-Moslem (or even as a Moslem) has not always been as pleasant as the theory would indicate. I would encourage you to look into that. I was friends with some Moslems when I lived in Ohio; they were here getting education. All of them told me of how unbearable they found Moslem societies to be, and how little they wished to return home when they were done in the states. There can be a danger for Western converts to foreign faiths – Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. – of only seeing the “theory” of those religions, without there being any present experience, or lingering cultural memory, of what those faiths really look like in the societies that were produced by their principles and cultures.
             I sympathize a great deal; my ideal government is a theocratic, Catholic monarchy. Catholicism also condemns the apostate notions of abstract “human rights” and freedom without respect to reason or morality. The Catholic Faith teaches that the Church will be victorious, in the end; but that there must first be a great apostasy and, as it appears in the Apocalypse, a global system of economic and moral turpitude. After this, and the period called “the Passion of the Church,” there will be a period of recovery before the final crisis of the world. I believe we are approaching the summit of the global elites’ world of financial and moral corruption, and that Islam will play an important role in the chaos of its dissolution. But I do believe that all, including Islam, will fall under the boot of the globalist power before the final exaltation of the Church, in what we call the “triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.”
             Time will tell us who was right, I suppose.

          6. you’re saying this physical realm of earth will be ‘finished’ after this fall and subsequent recovery?
             so having children would be pointless now?

          7. My dad was a Christian who lived in Pakistan and he was very oppressed by muslims. Pakistan is also thaghut. True Islam can’t be implemented without khilafah and khilafah can’t be established and maintained except through the blood of the mujahideen who practice the true belief based on quran and the sunnah of the phrophet (pbuh). I hope what whatever is true and just to be victorious, Whether Muslim or not. Because I feel if there are lies in a creed, it will only lead to corruption because that is the nature of lies. And corruption will lead to injustice and failure. But as you said time will tell.

          8. And who exactly do you think are the true Muslims? Which are these mujhaideen who practice true belief and will establish the Caliphate?

          9. That’s for you to decide based on your personal understanding of islam, because it’s a personal responsibility. I do not know better than you and neither should you trust me, but trust the quran because it is the word of God and has never been altered. And if a Muslim tells you to believe what a scholar says or an Imam says they are commiting kufr (disbelief). You don’t believe in anything but Allah has said. It’s not a easy path to establish Khilafah because of the Laws of Allah are hard to follow. But Allah will make those who believe succeful. Just as those who believe what their parents tell them to be good for them(considering it is good advice) and follow it will be succesful.

          10. “We don’t want you to become muslim. a non muslim who lives under shariah
              and is paying jizya will be the best guests in khilahaf.”
              Why don’t you mention what your religion teaches about the things that need to happen to non-Muslims who live under Shari’a and don’t pay jizya?

          11. No, there will be a substantial period of time after this recovery. I make that statement based off of general elements in Biblical and Catholic prophecy, but there are enough obscurities on the matter that one hesitates to be dogmatic. Still, there seems to be a general consensus that the current apostasy is the great apostasy, and coincides with “the Passion of the Church.” When this reaches its summit, there will be a frightful punishment – perhaps the “three days of darkness” mentioned by several Catholic visionaries and saints – and then, comes the promised triumph of the Immaculate Heart. The Church long ago condemned Chiliasm – the belief in a literal, 1000-year reign of Christ – because it does not comply with the truth that there shall be only two advents of Christ. However, the Church has believed that the whole period of the Church is the 1000-year reign, and that there may be a kind of substantial recovery of the Church, lasting for some period of time, as described in the Apocalypse (i.e., as coming between some of the apocalyptic events and the final end of the world). This may well correspond to the promised triumph of the Immaculate Heart, announced at Fatima, in which Christ will exercise a much closer and more glorious reign on the earth after the events of the apostasy and the destruction of “Babylon,” through the blessed Virgin. That period is thought to be a time of substantial length. So, while any children born at present may perish in the near future, as I believe we are approaching the collapse of Babylon, probably in our lifetimes if not in the next five-ten years, if they survive the coming years, they would live in what will probably be the greatest period in human history, thereafter.
              I know, all of this sounds confusing and demi-lunatic, in isolation; the fabric of Catholic prophecy has some real consistency to it, but one has to study it before one can connect the dots. I’m still in the process of doing that.

          12. Cui, if you are in the process of studying Catholic prophecies, look into the history of Our Lady of Good Success from Quito, Ecuador. Those are prophecies given specifically for our times.
              I came to the conclusion that there is no point in asking when and how long still, because then your life becomes depressing. The Kingdom of God is not earned through dying in some freaky apocalypic event, but through living and fighting everyday as if it were our last. That’s why I love the focus on self-improvement here on ROK. Hopefully, maybe one day when you are done with your studying, you will share your wisdom with us.

          13. I agree; whether we are in crisis or not, and whether it will last another year or another century, our duty would be the same: repent, love God, grow in virtue.
              I keep trying to verify the authenticity of Our Lady of Good Success. I even wrote to the bishop/chancery of Quito, and asked generally about the prophecies I hear attributed to their Madonna, what documentation there was of them, if they had ever scanned a .pdf of the 18th century work that is purported to record them, etc. I’ve never found a reply or an original document.
              It’s not that I dislike the message; it’s just that the prophecies seem too convenient, to me, especially since I’ve never seen any convincing documentation that they exist. God willing, I’ll find some.

          14. Spoken as a true historian. Unfortunately, I think we’ll out of luck with these.
              http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/F057_OLGS_Sources.htm

          15. Yes, I’d come across that before, and that was the book I was trying to get. The book obviously exists, as it was used in the Beatification process for mother Mariana. But, what does the book actually contain? Does it contain the attributed prophecies? I wanted to read it to be sure.

       2. I don’t agree and never will. Thank you for your opinion.

    2. It’s like Communism – sounds good in theory.

       1. Communism is man made. And promotes feminism and individualism and athiesm. Muslims don’t agree with these ideas.

       2. No it doesn’t.

    3. The issue here is how you view Christ. You view Christ as merely a man, and not the God-man of the Bible. Where does the Koran get the idea that Christ is merely a man and prophet and not fully God and Man? Several centuries pass between the final book of the New Testament and the Koran, so what is source for the Koran’s statements about Christ?

       1. The source of the quran is God. And tawhid (pure monothiesm) makes it clear that there is nothing and nobody associated or partnered with god. God is one and can’t be a man. A lot of people disregard quran as the message from god. But let’s look at it without refering to the text.
          1. If God is God his message will always be the same. His laws won’t change and if anyone does claim that it’s change they they are saying that God changed his mind. From a logical perspective this is absurd because God is perfect and his law will never change.
          So if this is true God would have given to adam and there would be no reason for another prophet. But the idea is that people eventually made innovations (which is haram) to God law and there was a need for another prophet and thus all the prophets throughout history came by the will of god to guide the people back to the law of god. So the Muslims believe that the message of Jesus was changed by people the same way people forgot the law of God given to the prophets abraham, moses david to name a few. So it was nessasary for Muhammad (pbuh) to come. But he is the final messenger till the end of times.
          So you see Muslims don’t want to oppress the world. We only want the law of God implemented, because we believe this is good for all of mankind the believers and non believers. Everyone wants to demonize Muslims and say Muhammad is a false messenger. But how can you make this claim when he called people to tawheed ( pure monothiesm)
          If you believe in 1 God, you would know that only good can come from He who is One. And Islam only teaches good so you can be sure that it’s the word of God. Some people say that their ideas on jihad are what makes it evil. But the Jihad is important because it defends the religion. If there was nobody to defend the religion then the religion will fall to corruption and injustice. for example look at secularism has led to man made laws that interfere with the laws of God through the means of feminism democracy, communism ect. how can Muslims maintain their religion and laws if the laws of man forbid the Muslim to have authority over his wife and children and their education. How can the Muslim maintain his religion if man made laws allow homosexuality and hedonism and such to be taught to our kids. How can the Muslim protect his wealth when the institution of banking with interest is robbing people of their wealth. The laws of man will always go against the laws of God in one way or another. In this time it’s democracy and feminism. In the time of Pharoah , it was worshiping him as a god, in the time before that idol worship and such. These man made laws only lead to injustice and give power to the few who will oppress the weak. So that’s why Jihad is important. And now I’m on a list somewhere.

          1. Your argument is purely circular: you’re using the koran’s claims to prove the koran’s claims. There’s an evangelical Christian who debates and writes on Islam named David Wood. He has a website called answering-islam.org. If you are really interested in the truth you really need to look at the many, many objections to Islam’s claim for itself, because it is not just false but demonstrably and obviously false. Good luck.

          2. Why is this kuffar spending so much time trying to disprove Islam instead of trying to prove his own belief?

          3. Oh you’re a troll. I should have guessed. Have fun I suppose. Since you’re so quick to call people kuffar I guess you won’t object to me referring to you as camelfuckingsandnigger from now on?

          4. Of course not.

          5. Sorry it has taken me so long to respond, but I will respond to first point since it interests me the most. If God is God then his law will not change; how does this relate to the lack of any sacrificial element in Muslim worship. Judaism had a sacrificial aspect to its worship before the destruction of the last temple, and at the core of Christian worship is the Sacrifice/Communion/Eucharist, though it has a different purpose than the Sacrifice that was once found in Judaism. My point being that if this aspect was so important to Judaism and Christianity, why is it nowhere to be found in the worship of Islam?

          6. Muslims sacrifice an animals or animals on eid celebration. Abraham tradition. But my knowledge is not the best on worship. I became Muslims because I support shariah Law. But I was an atheist before this and a jehovahs witNess before that so I while I do believe this is the religion of the one God and Muhammad is the final messenger, the aspects of worship are not my strong point. But my belief and reasons for it, without referring to any text is.

          7. Ah okay I didn’t realize it was linked to Abrahamic tradition. Out of sheer curiosity, does an imam play any part in the celebratory sacrifice, or is it left up to the owner/head of the house in charge of the Sacrifice?

          8. It’s usually anyone who can afford to buy an animal usually goat sheep or camel can take part. Then the meat is given to the poor and a feast is made ect. It’s not very ritualistic. They keep it simple.
             The imam is a spiritual/community leader and his status is based on his knowledge of the religion .

    4. “Allowed to live under Shari’a” reminds me of the statement that ‘a slave with a benevolent master is still a slave.’
       The establishment of a Calliphate is contrary to freedom.

       1. Brother. By now you should know there is no such thing as freedom. As long as men are imperfect there never will be. So we must not look to freedom for peace and justice on earth but submission to God’s law. But men hate this because they hate the morality of God’s law. It’s pure and simple. It makes sense.
          Edit: and when I wrote allowed to live under shariah I did so Because if you don’t want to follow the law of God you are free to fight the Muslims and then you won’t be living at all.

          1. The G-d christians worship is not allah. I wonder when muslims will confront their roots and see that the “holy books” they claim to have read are nothing but rips from the Bible and Torah centering around one man’s ego. A man who was a murderer and a thief who took to raping and pillaging (to promote himself while hiding behind a proclaimed god as cover). HIstorical note: Mulsims don’t build and maintain, they steal and covet. Just like the founder of the false religion.

       2. Ask him what a Christian’s life is explicitly worth under Shari’a. Ask him what the penalty is when a Muslim kills a Christian and that crime is dealt with under Shari’a.

          1. Non believers are allowed to practice their religion in their homes and families. They are allowed their own courts. And if they are attacked by Muslims it’s the duty of the mujahideen to fight those muslims. And if they don’t then they have committed disbelief because it’s God’s law and they will be punished in this life or the next. For example how they will be punished is that they would lose the khilafah that was established. Because the khilafah can only be established and maintained by true believers of islam.
             Quran surat 47:1 Those who disbelieve and avert [people] from the way of Allah – He will waste their deeds.
             And verse 38 of the same chapter says: Here you are, those invited to spend in the cause of Allah (God), but among you are those who withhold (out of greed) and whoever withholds only with old from himself and Allah if free of need while you are needy and if you turn away( from the religion and laws) then he will replace you with another people and they will not be the likes of you.
             The idea is that if you turn away from God’s law because of whatever reason your basically following your own laws. This leads to corruption and that leads to all sorts of injustice. And a government of injustice won’t survive because there will be rebellion and/or it will lead to others conquering it because of its weakness.
             Another example is that America was founded on some solid just principles that made it a great nation. But it got curropted and lost its power and strenght. Democracy itself is good for electing a leader but not to change the laws that made it work in the first place but now when the masses are given the right to vote and then it falls to all sorts of unjust laws. America in its formation was built on very Christian beliefs and morality, which is the similar to Islam. But they changed their principals and laws and that led to their downfall.
             In the previous khilafahs were conquered because they gave up their jihad and stopped practicing and that led to their downfall and deservedly so.
             So the point of all this is to say that yeah true Muslims sincerely will be happy to protect Christians living under Khilafah.

          2. Once again: tell us what a Christian’s life is explicitly worth under Shari’a. Tell us what the penalty is when a Muslim kills a Christian and that crime is dealt with under Shari’a.

          3. It’s up to the family of the Christian victim they are entitled to blood money or the life of the murderer.

          4. (1) And a Christian’s life is worth half that of a Muslim, isn’t it, since you’re unwilling to answer the question?
             (2) Muslims are not willing to protect Christians living under Khilafah without them paying a price, correct? Would you like to explain the meaning of the word “Jizya”?

          5. “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

       3. The one thing Muslims and National Socialists agree on is that we’ve had enough of your freedom. Look at the filthy decadence and neglect it has caused.
          The freedom to do anything is utterly contemptible if it does not accomplish your needs. And the survival of our people is the Supreme need your American style freedom has utterly failed to secure. So to Hell with it. Free-dumb go to Hell!

    5. 1. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=intent://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DDLdQlpz-PL4%23Intent%3Bscheme%3Dhttp%3Bpackage%3Dcom.google.android.youtube%3BS.browser_fallback_url%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.com%252Fsearchurl%252Fr.html%2523app%253Dcom.google.android.youtube%2526pingbase%253Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.com%252F%2526url%253Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.youtube.com%252Fwatch%253Fv%25253DDLdQlpz-PL4%3BS.android.intent.extra.REFERRER_NAME%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.com%3BlaunchFlags%3D0x8080000%3Bend&ved=0ahUKEwj94JbsoO_KAhUJ32MKHUw9CDgQwGkIJDAD&usg=AFQjCNEELM_00FAqkHPe9Bqp-hzHZkVZFg

    6. Look dude, going by your own Disqus posting history under this name you’re roughly 18 years old, and it was only about 7 months ago you were snorting cocaine and phenibut and believed in the power of atheism to solve the world’s ills. Get the “teen” out of your name first, get back in touch with your Dad who’s separated from the family, read some fucking philosophy and then try picking a religion.

    7. Ah. Another follower of the pedophiling thief and murderer.
       The islamic world is shit and their followers flee it like lice leaving a corpse.

22. I find that in times of crisis I immediately start praying The Our Father or Hail Mary. ‘Rote’ prayers make it easy to make a connection with God when you can’t think straight yet. I also love the comfort holding a rosary or wearing my rosary necklace gives me. I love that in a male-centered religious universe we have Mary to turn to for comfort and inspiration, as well. Thank you for your thoughtful article.

    1. The Hail Mary is my go-to prayer.

23. I am glad you chose the Pater Noster as nr one. We ask for great things in this prayer that require a lot of faith. Adveniat regnum Tuum ! Fiat voluntas Tua !
    I read an interesting interpretation once saying that since the will of God is the absolute good and brings perfect peace and hapiness, then the absence or removal of God introduces war, unrest and violence. So if governements around the world are fighting religion and removing God everywhere the can, God punishes them by his non-intervention with the resulting self-destruction of the world and moral collapse.

    1. This is exactly right. If you look into the real meaning and history of the Feast of Christ the King, you will see that this was central to it. Sadly, now even most Catholics have lost this sensibility and, lamentabile dictu, participate in the world’s spirit of autonomous rebellion.
       Sed libera nos a malo. Amen!

       1. And yet, when we pray ”Thy kingdom come”, we want God to be our King. Unfortunately, many people say the words of this prayer mindlessly, not realizing the depth of each request.

          1. Then it’s time for a new religion when the old one is nothing but rotted dry wood.

          2. It is not the religion that is rotten dry wood, but the souls of the men of this generation. May God be our light.

          3. Amen.
             A man doesn’t blame a book for his own laziness and indifference to reading it.

24. Every higher civilization has a path to the divine. In the Sufism of Iran – poetry takes the place of prayer. Here’s a poem from Rumi- recited by Parisa, one of Iran’s finest voices. The name of the poem is “Water of Life”.
    

25. Here’s what the Psalms sound like, in the original Hebrew (120 through 134).
    

    1. The Psalms sung in the Greek version quoted by the New Testament, in Byzantine chant.
       

       1. Ideally, should the Psalms be chanted in Hebrew?

          1. Not necessarily. The Church has never had an official Hebrew version of the Bible. The Septuagint and the (Clementine) Vulgate are the only versions of the Bible guaranteed to be inerrant. Of course, if we had trustworthy Hebrew originals, the Church might go about authorizing a secure, Hebrew text.

          2. Thanks for the response!

    2. And, for good measure, an “alleluiaticum” version of Psalm 148 in Gregorian Chant:
       

26. Thank you for posting this. For the strong man humbles himself before The Lord. Learning how to keep faith helps men to be strong when the wicked and the SJWs (Same thing. I know) set upon us.

27. Excellent article.
    Thank you also for the explanation on ‘Hail Mary” and the rosary; as a non-Catholic I found it enlightening as to the ‘why’.

    1. I’m gratified if I helped one person understand it. I used to be a Protestant myself, and was very anti-Catholic. There’s a lot of misunderstanding of Catholic practices, as I know by personal experience.

28. I used to be a good churchgoer in my youth. Choirboy and all. I had thought of picking a popular church to attend to meet people the best, but I realized I need the Episcopal church back from my youth; the liturgy matters. We tack on “for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever and ever, Amen.” onto the end of the Lord’s Prayer and it seems right to me that way.

    1. Yeah, my first experience of a traditional form of Christianity, was in the Orthodox Church. I always hear the Greek priest chanting ὅτι σοῦ ἐστίν ἡ βασιλεῖα καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα, τοῦ πατρός καὶ τοῦ Ὑιοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος, νῦν καὶ αἐὶ καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰώνας τῶν αἰώνων (“for Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, now and ever and to ages of ages, amen”).

       1. Thank you for that, I always was disappointed that I never fully understood what was being chanted in church (I am Greek orthodox), I am glad to know even that small part. I am inspired to review the Greek prayers that I used to say with yiayia every night when I was younger.
          Thank you for your wonderful articles.

          1. Oh, you should; the prayers of the Greek Church are very beautiful.
             Thanks be to God, Who gave us something good to write about.

29. Thank you for this contribution, brother Aurelius. A wish in older form for you:
    The Lord bless thee and keep thee;
    The Lord make his face shine upon thee and be gracious unto thee;
    The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee;
    And give thee peace.

    1. Many thanks, and may He do likewise for yourself.

       1. Another good article Aurelius.
          Of course as a Protestant, I must point out that prayers are properly addressed to God (normally to the Father, in the Name of the Son, and through the Spirit).
          We ought not pray to the saints (including Mary the mother of Christ).
          There is one Savior, and One, who continuously intercedes for us before the throne of God. We boldly draw near the Throne of Grace with all confidence in Christ, and His finished work alone.
          Soli Deo Gloria!

          1. “We ought not pray to the saints (including Mary the mother of Christ). There is one Savior, and One, who continuously intercedes for us before the throne of God.”
             Nobody prays to saints, they ask the saints to pray for them, just as Protestant ask others for prayers, for they are more alive than you are (Mark 12:26-27) because God is a God of the living not the dead. Moreover, “soul sleep” is a heresy limited to the most fringe sects, and you notice that even some who claim to believe in it really don’t, they happily tell stories of interactions with deceased relatives who can somehow always aid/pray for them.
             Now, as far as the original list with the Hail Mary in number two, the problem with it isn’t the prayer itself, but that in popular Roman Catholic piety, such as the Rosary, they say it what, 20x or more times for every prayer directed to God?
             In Orthodoxy the defining prayer is, “Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Asking for the intercessions of the saints merely break up long chains of Christ/Trinitarian prayer.

          2. Sorry if this question is too personal, but are you actually Orthodox or just an admirer?

          3. While I affirm the theological truths of Christ’s accomplished work and unique mediation, and the manner of holy boldness that a soul in the state of grace can have before God, humility and piety also recommend to the Christian a kind of mediated approach to Christ, in much the same way that we might get a meeting with a governor, king or other important person by approaching one of his friends or ministers first. Nor does it break our sense of intimacy with Christ; we pray directly to Him with great devotion and confidence; but we are also glad, especially when we are conscious of our shortcomings and treasons against Him, to recall to His mind His many friends and chosen servants, asking that He Who is glorified in His saints would remember us through their own prayers and intercessions. And why should He not? Does He not routinely listen to our prayers for each other?
             The role of the Virgin and the other saints (and ours, if we remain in Him) is one of cooperating with Christ as His members, in a cooperation which only has any meaning or efficacy because it is rooted in Christ’s first and principle redemptive work – and this is in the very highest theological sense; merely asking prayers of the saints no more detracts from Christ’s unique mediation than does asking the prayers of any other person – indeed, we should ask the prayers of those who are holier and closer to God, as St. James says: “the prayer of a righteous man availeth much.”
             Christ’s unique mediation between God and men is not founded upon His praying for us, as many people do this; it is founded upon His Theandric acts (His acts as God-Man, mediator between God and men), most especially His Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension and Mission of the Spirit upon the race of the redeemed, His own Body’s members. Obviously, only He does this in His own right, by nature; He alone is God-Man and Mediator in this sense.
             Yet, we believe that all of those who are in Christ participate to some extent in this, following St. Paul’s many statements to this effect in the Scriptures: i.e., “all ye who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ,” and “I fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the Church,” and “now I live, not I, but Christ liveth in me,” and “I hope that I may be found in him, not having my justice, which is of the law, but that which is of the faith of Christ Jesus, which is of God, justice in faith: that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable to his death, If by any means I may attain to the resurrection which is from the dead. Not as though I has already attained, or were already perfect; but I follow after, if I may by any means apprehend, wherein I am also apprehended by Christ Jesus.”
             Anyway, the theme is clear: the Christian is a “little Christ” and is a partaker of Christ’s theandric acts, of His sufferings, of His victories, of His justice, by grace. In this sense, Christ is the sole Mediator as the only God-Man by nature; yet He lends to His members a kind of participation and compassion with Him in this role, by adoption through the Holy Ghost.
             Yet one more thing can be said: the Blessed Virgin more than any other Christian played an active and participatory role in the theandric acts of Her Son, for in a certain sense they were all done through her and with her consent, as it were. For God did not compel the Virgin contrary to her will, but she, moved by grace, freely and gladly consented to become mother of the God-Man and the Redeemer, and throughout her life “pondered all these things in her heart,” and shared with Him in all He did, remaining with Him even at the cross, consenting even then, in her divine maternity, to the work of her Son. Hence, though all Christians, as little Christs, can truly be said to participate with Christ in offering their sufferings up with Him for a redemptive purpose (but only secondarily and by the participation given them from Christ), we call the Virgin Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all Graces in the supreme sense.
             This is not to say that she is a God-Woman or a Redemptrix in her own right (God forbid!); but neither is her role equivalent to that of other Christians, albeit to a superior degree. Rather, whereas all other Christians receive everything of their participation in Christ, the Virgin alone made an indispensable contribution of her own self to Christ: of great importance, was her consent to the divine will, and a continual consent as mother to her Son’s work, submitting to her own lot of suffering on account of her Son; yet most importantly and sublimely, she contributed her own flesh to her Son in His Incarnation, and thus all of His theandric acts, are done in the flesh he received from Mary; she is present to us in all of them. The flesh baptized in the Jordan, is the flesh taken entirely from Mary (for no human father contributed; Christ’s whole humanity is His mother’s), and thus we, as we emerge from the font and “put on Christ,” put on the flesh taken from the VIrgin. The Flesh that suffered on the Cross, that rose from the sepulcher, that even now sits glorified in the heavenlies at the Father’s right hand, is the integral flesh taken from the Virgin. Hence, the Virgin’s participatory role in the theandric acts of her Son is obviously of a singular and proactive quality, far in excess of any other Christian’s merely received participation. And we revere her, knowing how great must be the woman who was chosen for such a privilege.
             Even St. James says that one who preaches the Gospel and causes a sinner to repent, “saves” him (though Christ is the only Saviour, stricto sensu). So, such things need not scandalize us; indeed, they generally only do because we have a prejudice, and fail to ponder the truly profound theological significance of these things, which, far from detracting from Christ, glorify Him the more by showing the full profundity, variety and sublimity of His works, and of the divine life He communicates to the faithful as participants of His divine nature (2 Peter 1:4)
             In the light of this, we can better understand such passages as “it has not yet appeared what we shall be, but we know we shall be like the angels in heaven,” or “one is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, and another the glory of the stars. For star differeth from star in glory; so also is the resurrection of the dead,” or, “For I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, that shall be revealed in us. For the expectation of the creation waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God,” and finally, “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man, what God hath prepared for them that love Him.” The heritage of our redemption is glorious, and I came to see that Catholicism simply takes this seriously, and, in the wisdom of the Spirit of God, has exposited very fully the nature of the faithful’s participation in Christ. Our reverence for the saints and the friends of God even here and now, as well as our profound respect for the theological truths about Christ’s uniqueness as the God-Man, Mediator and Redeemer, are all of a piece, and are all rooted in these profoundly biblical truths.

30. Thanks for this article Aurelius.
    I really enjoy reading each one of your articles as I’m always learning new things.
    I bet that one day discussing this kind of topic will automatically label you as a fanatic. I’m convinced it’s down the line for us, probably not our generation yet but the next one.

    1. the way governments are cracking down on any ‘heretics’ against multiculturalism and gay marriage, it’s only a matter of time before they more openly attack Christian folk. Definitely in this generation.

    2. I think we’re already there. If I discuss religion frankly with anyone in my family, their eyes go wide like I’m some sort of lunatic. “Religion is about being a nice person,” my mother always says if I start to hint that religion is about communion with God and an encounter with the Absolute.

       1. Dang!
          I respect a serious Catholic! I also respect the serious Orthodox Christian. I even deeply respect serious Jews and Muslims (though I believe they are cut off from God, denying the Person and Saving Work of the Lord Jesus Christ).
          We serious conservative religious folks are some of the only people who can have meaningful discussion about God.
          Personally, I am a convictional Protestant of the Old School (I love,and largely – but not entirely agree – with John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Knox, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, etc.).
          I grew up on soft squishy fuzzy American Evangelical Cultural Christianity. I’m tired of that, and want to actually take God, and the Bible seriously.

31. So glad that Return of Kings is addressing Christianity finally. A lot of the alt-right seems to think we just need a majority of whites and everything will be fine again. A nation without a foundation of Christ is built on sinking sand.

    1. So true. God is color blind, figuratively speaking

       1. Yeah. One Bible for all mankind. “For God is no respecter of any persons”

    2. Why do you feel that the alt-right is racist?

       1. I don’t feel the alt-right is “racist” by the original intent of the word. In any case not more racist than any other race. I work with blacks, hispanics, asians and eastern bloc types and in my experience white people are the least racist. My point was “white culture” is not enough, unless it’s the “white culture” that involves God.

    3. While I do think that cultures do better when they are more or less ethnically homogenous (because otherwise, ethnic subcultures develop, and defect from developing personal responsibility by blaming the majority culture for most of their problems), I wholly agree that this is not enough. At this point, fellow whites are the greatest threat to our national prosperity, because they are self-loathing and traitorous. Only an healthy society established on the principles of Natural Law, at a minimum, will produce any natural good. And we see how Christian societies have, through history, risen to sublime heights far in excess of other cultures.

32. I’m a protestant. We don’t hail Mary. The headline should be the Catholic tradition.

    1. Amen- Can’t understand why Catholic Heresies are being put forward on RoK and the manosphere more generally as representative of the faith.

       1. One word: Authenticity.

          1. How exactly?

       2. “heresy” is a Greek term, meaning “to pick/choose.” The Catholic Faith is all about receiving the Apostolic Tradition in its entirety, without feeling free to pick and choose what one likes from it. Protestantism, on the contrary, is founded upon personal autonomy, the “authority of the believer,” the “rights of conscience,” etc., etc., all of which are just another way of saying “the right to pick and choose what the Bible means, for myself.” It is heresy incarnate.

          1. Apologies for the lateness of this reply, been a busy couple of months; Also, thanks Br. for replying personally, however, the following point needs to be made: Your notion that Protestantism is founded upon personal autonomy is nonsense, of course there are protestants who do practice such, as there are (a great many) Catholics; Those who revere the Bible as the true word of God recognise it, and it in its entirety as the word of God. The fact that there are liberal “protestant” heretics (as well as, like I said, Catholics) who do not accept this does not negate the truth of the Gospel, as well as the falsehoods of Catholicism. Speaking of which, your statement begs the question as to why then the Catholic Church engages in such a great degree of αἱρησις? I could give mountains of examples but I imagine you’ve heard most of them before, so I’ll await and listen to your response.

          2. I’ll also apologize; I just now saw your message.
             As a preliminary, I will say: any Catholic who trusts his own opinion contrary to the Magisterium on any point of Divine and/or Catholic Faith (technical terms for us), automatically puts himself out of the Church, by the teaching and laws of the Church herself. So, in fact, there are NO Catholics who deliberately disobey the Magisterium, especially if they do so in a public way, though there certainly are folk who claim to be Catholics, and who do this.
             Now, to cut to the chase: what authority would compel your obedience in Faith, over your own disagreement? Let us say you are reading the Bible, and it says “there is now in Christ neither male nor female, Jew nor gentile, but all are one in Christ Jesus,” and it seems plain to you that this means we must eliminate gender roles and all manifestations of national or ethnic pride. What authority can command you to change your own interpretation of the Scripture and to adopt it’s interpretation, instead – such that you believe you would put your soul at risk for disobeying?

          3. I hope that the example you gave there was just a hypothetical one and that you’re not mistaking me for a feminist/SJW- The Lord forbid it, I’m a seasoned neomasculinist!
             Anyway, to answer your with the benefit of the doubt- Logic, reason, intellect, integrity, consistency and above all, a desire to seek the objective truth of the consistent witness and true interpretation of scripture, all of course, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We don’t believe that we need an external authority to interpret Scripture for us (even if we did, it would by no means be the Magisterium), to one who genuinely desires to seek its true and correct interpretations and meanings it will become clear with prayerful study and the exercise of the above virtues above and beyond our own interpretations.
             So to re-use your example, a SJW heretic who has no interest in actually coming to understand what Paul (guided by the Spirit) meant when he wrote Gal. 2:28 will read it in light of their preconceptions rather than the desire to truly understand scripture, and as a result come to the above conclusion; conversely a true born again believer will, at least ideally, read the passage -acknowledging that the objective truth of its meaning is determined by the intent of the original author and the Spirit’s inspiration, and that their personal interpretations are, at best, tertiary- pray for guidance in understanding, then apply their intellectual and reasoning skills to arrive at the correct interpretation, in this case (if they followed this ‘formula’ with consistency) that since the scriptures very clearly teach the importance of masculine and feminine gender roles on numerous occasions, “neither male nor female” cannot possibly mean “post-gender happytopia™”.
             A Catholic, by contrast, must accept the Church’s interpretation no matter how wildly it veers from the self-evident truths of scriptural teaching, hence the many falsehoods of Catholicism such as works-based salvation, Mariolatry, and Papal authority, to name the three biggest (in my view).
             I hope this answers your question.
             Ἐιρήνη

          4. I’m sorry for the delay in reply; in addition to having been very busy, I’ve also found it difficult to find the time to craft quite the reply I would have liked to craft for you. In order to keep the ball rolling, I’ll offer this largely inedited reply, which kicks around the ideas I wanted to discuss. Feel free to reply to the points in turn, or to craft a more general reply to all of them at once.
             I’ll point out, by way of introduction, that your comments about “wildly veering from the self-evident truths of scriptural teaching” drives right at the heart of the problem. For, on the one hand, the first Christians did not believe in the Scriptures as the sole rule of Faith, and so neither do Catholics; on the other hand, Catholics believe that nothing in the Apostolic Tradition can contradict Scripture, which is the first and most authoritative record of the Apostolic preaching. And so, for example, I believe that the Scriptures and reason clearly teach the Marian dogmata, and the Petrine Primacy. As to the other point, Catholics do not believe that salvation is based upon works; we believe the crystal-clear teaching of the Scripture that grace saves us through the means of Faith, and Faith without works is dead – a mere belief, which even the demons have. Indeed, I find these doctrines much more clearly in Scripture, than the doctrines of Sola Scriptura, which is nowhere taught in the Bible, and Sola Fides, which is directly condemned by the Bible.
             And this is the whole point: dead letters on a page do not themselves comprise a doctrinal authority, for everybody – Protestants included – has to interpret them through an hermeneutical tradition, or through a set of assumptions, cultural biases, etc. The question then becomes, “how are the Scriptures properly interpreted?” – a question the earliest Christians knew well enough – and that question is really the matter at issue. Any statement that Catholic teaching is contrary to Scripture, is premature and moot until we know 1) what is Scripture? 2) how authoritative is it? 3) how do we understand it? To start with the assumptions that folk should interpret it privately and regard it as the sole rule of faith, is already to have adopted an extra-scriptural (and non-scriptural, even anti-scriptural) set of principles.
             You say that genuine desire for the true and correct interpretation, along with reason, intellect, integrity, etc., assure a man that the Holy Ghost will teach him the truth. But this leads me to have three questions:
             1) Do you believe that the Holy Ghost zaps him with all this truth in the instant that he becomes good, sincere, zealous intelligent and reasonable? Or do you think that even a good, sincere, zealous intelligent and reasonable man will spend some time learning the truth more fully? In which case, if it is possible even for good, sincere, zealous, intelligent and reasonable men to not yet apprehend the truth with complete accuracy, then is it not clear that the presence of these qualities, even if we could be sure that we or somebody else possessed them, would not be any sufficient guarantee of orthodoxy?
             2) The Scriptures command the faithful to mind their prelates and follow their faith (Heb 13:7), to obey them because they are responsible before God for the souls of the faithful (ibid, 13:17), and upon pain of excommunication to heed the Church (Matthew 18:17) which is the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth (1 Tim 3:15), and is indefectible (Matt16:18) as she is the Body of Christ (Col 1:24 et al.,), Who is Himself the Truth (John 14:6), and Who has given the keys of His kingdom to Peter, such that he may bind and loose with heaven’s own ratification (Matt 16:19). The Scriptures also mention that God has established teachers in the Church (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11), and that men of the latter days will fall from the faith by doing just the opposite: rather than heeding the Church, minding and obeying her prelates and following their faith, they will heap up teachers for themselves according to their private inclinations (2 Tim 4:3).
             Yet you say that the good, sincere, zealous intelligent and reasonable man has no need for an external authority, but should trust that his private inclinations are informed by direct revelation of the Holy Ghost on account of the excellent personal qualities which he must ascribe to himself if he has any confidence in his interpretation. In other words, this looks like a textbook definition of what Scripture says the Apostasy will be. How do you square that circle, saying that swell guys have no need of an external authority, when the Scriptures repeatedly admonish obedience to teachers and prelates, continuing in subjection to their example, doctrine and authority?
             3) Is it not a direct consequence of your premise (that a good, sincere, zealous, intelligent and reasonable man can be confident that he is enabled to read and understand Scripture without fear of error), that a man must cultivate an attitude that is contrary to reason, virtue and Scripture at least in two ways? Namely, that a:) if he has any confidence at all in his interpretation of Scripture, this requires him to ascribe all kinds of wonderful qualities and motives to himself, despite the fact that Scripture warns us of the treachery of man’s own heart, the infirmity of his judgment and the need to maintain humility? Also, b:) if he thinks any man is lost in heterodoxy, he must either pass judgment on the heart of that man, as suffering from a moral defect of dishonesty, hypocrisy, etc. (a thing our Lord warned us against doing), or he must conclude that God has denied him the truth on account of a lack of natural intellect or deductive powers, which is contrary to the Scriptures and reason. Contradictory of the Scriptures, for they teach that the things of God are above and hostile to the merely natural mind (Rom 8:7), and God is no respecter of persons, such as to deny necessary knowledge to the mere dullard; contradictory of reason, for the objects of faith (such as God Himself) are beyond the mind’s rational comprehension, and an accurate knowledge of them is not the result of intellectual acumen.
             For my part, I do not believe that knowledge of the truth is a prize given to the smartest and most zealous persons, but is the gift of God who exalts the humble and humiliates the proud. And I think that assuming a personal guarantee of truth from the Spirit through a presumption that one definitely has sufficient intellect, zeal, integrity and rationality, is a high pitch of pride, indeed – especially when this private opinion holds in contempt the universal faith and practice of 1500 years of Christianity, before and after Constantine! Likewise, I regard clinging to the demonstrably ancient and universal doctrines of the Church (believed in the first millennium by all Christians whether in Ireland or Iraq, Mauretania or Kiev), following the faith of her prelates and abiding in the Traditions given by word of mouth and by epistle, and submitting to the Church Herself which teaches them and has always been governed in unity by the Apostolic power of her prelates and especially the successors to the Petrine primacy, as a mark of humility, which seems far more conformable to the actual admonitions of the Scriptures than the Protestant approach of individual truth – a principle which has motivated every form of Liberal dissent for the past five centuries of Western society’s disintegration.

    2. It makes no difference how your jew-worship differs from his jew-worship; you both worship jews. In both cases Yahweh is cuckolding your soul.

    3. The Catholic Tradition is the Christian Tradition, by any objective standard of historical knowledge. The Hail Mary is found in Scripture, and expresses the Christian belief in the Incarnation, contrary to the many heresies that try to deny or otherwise mitigate the belief that Christ was truly God Incarnate.
       I used to be a Protestant, and was in fact very anti-Catholic (I was one of those “the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon” types). But as I learned more about the Apostolic Faith, I came to see that most of my prejudices against it were baseless. It can take a lot, to shift from one worldview to an entirely different one. But it remains my conviction that anybody who *honestly* examines Christian history and listens to the reasonable arguments in favour of the Catholic Faith, will be persuaded quite easily.

33. Christianity is a Jewish sect, it’s not a healthy religion for a European man to practice. Metaphysically it will pollute your soul with Semitic heresies. It’s the proto – cuckoldery for a European man to believe in a Jewish messiah.
    Sooner would I believe in Krishna, at least he is an Indo-European God.

    1. Byzantium held off the Muslim hordes for a thousand years because of their strong faith in Christ. Now that European man is rejecting the truth of Christ we are being erased. That isn’t a coincidence.

       1. Byzantine fought pretty good… until they were attacked by the Crusades!
          European man built the Classical World. Semitic religions destroyed it.

          1. Man that is a seriously distorted view of history. German and British tribes were burning children alive and sacrificing and torturing in the name of their pagan Gods. You think that was better than Christianity? And if they were so superior, why did they lose…to Christianity?
             You have been brainwashed your entire life to hate Christianity, so you hate Christianity. Believe what you want, but on this topic you are wrong friend.
             If it wasn’t for great Christian champions like Charles Martel, Constantine, and Justinian, not to mention Isabella and the great reconquista of Spain by Christians, Europe would have fallen to the sword of Islam a thousand years ago.
             And despite what the heretic Zionists preach today, there is no alliance between Christianity and Judaism. Christ called it the synagogue of satan for a reason.

          2. Those stories of Pagans burning people was Roman propaganda. But Christians were known to burn people at the stake.
             No I was not brainwashed my entire life. It was a conscious decision. I used to be a Christian until I devoted some serious thought to the matter, as my one can.
             Charles Mantle, murderer of Saxons. If he devoted that much effort to fighting Muslims then Iberia would have been cleansed much sooner.
             If Christianity didn’t destroy the Classical World with its faggy effeminate heresies then the Roman Legions would have done a far better job at defending Europe.
             Christians are treacherous, like the Templar Knights slaughtering Slavs when they were the Slavs were fighting Ghengis Khan, or the Crusades sacking Constantinople at a time they were besieged.
             Just stop worshipping a jew and you’ll be ok.

          3. Christians are treacherous? That is quite the broad brush you are painting with friend. In reality things are never as simple as you are making them. And the Romans were backstabbing, and poisoning, and murdering each other long before Christ ever came into the World. Trust me, there was plenty of treachery to go around.
             Empires come and go, people who hate Christianity like to name Christianity as the culprit, but in Reality the Eastern Roman Empire survived far longer as a Christian nation than did the pagan Roman empire that you hold up as the pinnacle of excellence. But I guess that doesn’t fit you little narrative so it is best to be ignored.
             Tell me, was Carthage destroyed because of Christianity? Did the Spartans lose because of Christianity? Was mighty Athens conquered because of Christianity? When Hannibal was spanking Roman heinies for fun was Christianity to blame?

          4. The sac of Constantinople resulted from the slaughter of the Latin minority in the city a few years before. It wasn’t “treason” more retaliation.
             Also, what you write is full of shit.

          5. Either way it’s infighting. Not something you want within when Islam is without.
             At least the Romans stuck together.

          6. Now you’re just hysterically blabbering vague knee-jerk counter accusations with no basis… because your feels are hurt.
             Come back when you’re feeling more calm, then we can argue.
             Now shoo

          7. What ?! You really are saying there was no infighting among the Romans ? You should study your classical history.

          8. That’s what you’re saying. So you figure that one out.
             I’m saying the Romans had a better batting average than the jebus cult.
             If you had an argument to make you wouldn’t need to misconstrue my words.
             I wonder whose full of shit.

          9. “Either way it’s infighting. Not something you want within when Islam is without.
             At least the Romans stuck together.”
             I don’t know what you meant through this post other than the christians had infighting while the pagan Romans had none.
             I also find that funny that you’re naming Christianity this “faggy effeminate heresy” when you know how the pagan Romans used to live.
             It is that “faggy effeminate heresy” which allowed us to kick the muslims out Europe, to win the two sieges of Vienna, to take back Malta from the Ottomans, it is also Christianity which created the first european universities in the middle-ages, which saved and studied the works of the romans and greeks philosophers, which gave us all the architectural marvels we have in Europe now.
             This is quite a batting average.

          10. Typical troll. Don’t feed.

          11. No, this is a very shallow and incorrect appraisal of the collapse of the Classical world. It sounds like somebody’s been reading too much Gibbons!
              The Christian-Classical fusion surpassed the pagan societies in every way, attaining its most brilliant splendor in the Renaissance. Then, like most cultures that have hit their peak, it experienced an internal crisis and has been in slow decline for five centuries, now. It will recover when it rediscovers its faith and virtue.
              The degree to which the Byzantines suffered under the Crusades is wildly exaggerated. Also completely omitted, usually, are the unprovoked and far more brutal massacres of Venetian and other Latin Rite citizens, that elicited the Crusaders’ punitive actions.

          12. The citizens of Constantinople, whose Hellenic pride was offended at the immense success in both business and philosophy by the Venetians and other Latins, and outraged beyond all proportion by differences of custom in the Latin Rite, conducted an unprovoked massacre of innocent men, women and children in Constantinople and a few other Byzantine towns. This, drew the Crusaders’ reprisal.
              Study your history. Why were Charles Martel and Charlemagne fighting the Saxons? And how deluded can you be, to think that Rome – with more sodomites, trannies and catamites per capita than any city in the world at the time – was destroyed by “faggy Christians?” The “faggy Christians” were comprised mainly of soldiers and family men, and an elite of ascetics. Read Juvenal sometime; he’s complaining about mass immigration, gay marriage, a demoralized and incompetent upper class, etc., etc.
              In other words, the same thing brought down Rome, that brings down every other great civilization: internal decadence, corruption and moral drift. Christianity was the only thing that *salvaged* anything of the Classical world, not the thing that destroyed it. Why, you wouldn’t even be able to read Juvenal, Ovid or Virgil, unless the Christians had spent so much time copying their writings!

          13. You’re complaining about infighting? The majority of your ancestors, and of your modern compatriots, are Christians. If you’re so opposed to infighting… the conclusion should be obvious.

          14. Yeah this is obviously an autistic teenager looking for attention. Why bother with him if he won’t even listen?

          15. You are giving this kid too much credit if you really think he’s read Gibbon.

          16. What amazing revisionist history you have.

          17. Since when does popularity decide what’s right or wrong?
              What is this, a chic high school clique?

          18. Yeah those Christians who burned down the Library of Alexandria, Semitic religions certainly appreciate Classical writings.

          19. The Romans had solidarity enough to unite an Empire. The Christians had dark ages, infighting, feudalism, thirty years wars, etc…
              All because of pettifoging some jewish ravings.
              Yeah, Christians burned classical Texts, exterminated Pagans, and plunged Europe into a dark age until the renaissance threw all that Christ nonsense off.

          20. Renaissance came about when all that Christtard nonsense was put in the back seat for a while–it was a Pagan age where Europe rediscovered her soul.

          21. “Dark ages” haha
              The only darkness of middle ages is the one your astonishing ignorance of history is projecting on it.
              You’re spouting outdated nonsense here, which sounds a lot like leftist propaganda, and you don’t even take into account what I wrote to you.
              You clearly don’t know anything about medieval nor roman history.
              Any serious modern historian has invalidated your bullshit.
              I won’t reply to you anymore, since you don’t even care to look up the facts that I’ve given to you.
              Educate yourself.

          22. So Europe went from Classical civilization to mud huts and selling fur. And you don’t think this was a Dark Age.
              Lol and you want to talk ignorance. Yes good strategy, best stop responding if that’s indicative of your limited intellect.

          23. Again ; reducing early medieval Europe to “mud huts and selling fur”. That’s just ignorance. You should read up. You’re even disrespecting pagan civilizations there.
              You’re not even reading what I and others wrote. Repeating the same thing over and over like a child.
              Good bye.

          24. Again, this really isn’t true; the Middle Ages are just as full of works that allude to the myths and histories of Pagan peoples. The wheels on scientific discoveries and observations of the material world had been set in place a few hundred years prior, with the foundation of the Universities, the growth of Scholasticism, and the earliest works in developing machines and scientific theories. I will admit that much of this was due to a revival of Aristotelian methodology. But it was all very much under the auspices of the Church, and conducted by men of profound, Christian Faith. Even most of the great scientists and mathematicians, were men of profoundly Christian Faith until the 18th century.
              The real crisis of the West came from the focus on humanism, that developed at this time – when European man forgot not only his Christian past, but even his pagan past. Western man denied his soul and spirit in his pursuit of the world of machines and absolutely material processes. This resulted in the destruction of not only the Christian, but even of the lingering pagan elements, in the fabric of his existence.

          25. Yes, this fabrication of Gibbons is completely disproven by all the historical information at hand. I find it singularly ironic, that the people who blame the Christians for “destroying all those Classical writings,” can’t be bothered to read the Classical writings that do exist.
              From an article I wrote, way back when the movie “Hypatia” came out:
              “…the Library of Alexandria and its environs were sacked several times over, so that it is already spoken of by Strabo (who died ca. 24 AD, before Jesus Christ even began to preach) as a thing of the past. Plutarch also writes of it as a thing destroyed before his own time (d. 120 A.D.).
              The whole notion comes from the notably anti-Christian Gibbon, who prefers to assume several things, contrary to all the positive evidence… for example, he assumes that the Serapeum was the Great Library, and that there were still books in the Serapeum. First, the Serapeum was, even in its heyday, at most a “daughter” of the Great Library, containing only a fraction of its books. Second, it is almost certain that the Serapeum no longer housed any books, since the pagan chronicler Ammianus Marcellinus, describing it less than a year before Christians tore it down, specifically mentions that its libraries no longer existed… “in quo, bibliotechae fuerunt inaestimabiles… dum diripitur civitas sub dictatore Caesare, conflagrasse” (i.e., “in which [Serapeum] there were priceless libraries… until the dictator, Caesar, had set the city ablaze after it was sacked”).
              Even if Caesar were not to blame, at least Ammianus was a witness to the fact that the libraries were no longer there! Then, all chroniclers of the event – including bitterly anti-Christian writers like Eunapios of Sardis, in whose writings the criticism of bishop Theophilus and the Christians was an habitual goal – make no mention of any books or libraries being damaged or lost, even when specifically enumerating the things plundered, destroyed or stolen from the temple. Finally, even if there were any texts still in the Serapeum, their destruction would have been incidental to the event, and not the goal of book-hating Christians.
              And in any case, it certainly would not amount to a destruction of THE Library of Alexandria, which had waxed and waned many times before, and seems to have been basically defunct before the Christians even arrived on the scene. In fact, it is possible that any books in the Serapeum were removed, as they were from many such places, to be preserved in the collections of Christian prelates, intellectuals or governors. Orosius, writing just a few years after the event, mentions that Christians – far from burning Pagan books intentionally, actually rescued Pagan books when they converted temples into Churches. Exactly the kind of thing we would expect from the Church, Which preserved reams of Classical, Pagan literature to the present day.
              Finally, the film depicts Hypatia as being hounded by Christians as an heretic, and specifically depicts bishop Synesius as a persecutor of hers, who saw her violent death and outlived her. In reality, Hypatia was adored by bishop Synesius, who almost certainly died before her and who was actually not the most Christian of bishops! Finally, one of the best accounts of her murder was written by a Christian named Socrates, who admired her and regretted her death. The intellectual circles of Alexandria were places where Christians, Jews and Pagans all interacted quite peacably, and where a Pagan like Hypatia was capable of being esteemed, admired and even followed by Christians. Hypatia was murdered in the midst of inter-necine warfare between lower-class mobs of Jews, Christians and Pagans, for political reasons – not out of some fictitious Christian hatred of female intellectuals (vide St. Katherine, et alias).
              For those of us who aren’t as on the ball about the topic as we could have been (myself included), here’s a great site that cites primary sources and examines the matter in detail. The parts specifically pertaining to Gibbon’s fiction, come towards the bottom of the page (search for “Gibbon” on the page, and you’ll go straight to it).
              http://www.bede.org.uk/Library2.htm
              One wonders why men with so little intellectual curiosity or honesty should bewail the (fictitious) destruction of the Great Library by Christians; if they can’t be bothered to read what ancient sources do survive, and act responsibly based on their information, why do they think they would have done so with the ones that didn’t? In their scenario, it seems like the Christians have only done them the favour, of eliminating the number of facts they have to ignore.”

          26. Can you not follow even your own train of thought? YOU are the one complaining about infighting, and saying that “at least the Romans stuck together.” And now you complain about cliquish behavior? Make up your mind, man! If you value group cohesion so highly, stop undermining the foundations of your nation and people; shut up and toe the line. If you value fighting over your civilization’s foundations and being a dissenting voice from what your ancestors and brothers have stood for throughout the past many centuries, quit complaining about the lack of cohesion.

    2. I think history has proven that the Church attained the highest pitches of masculine virtue, wisdom and beauty. God likes to demonstrate His power by bringing what is best out of what is worst. The most “anti-Semitic” literature in the world, arguably, is the collected writings of the Old Testament prophets. Jews do not come off sympathetically, neither in the New nor the Old Testaments.
       Christ came from Jewish stock, and the work God did to prepare that people to bear the Messiah. But He also gave truth and assistance to others; the Church has always taken what is best from the native genius of the peoples it evangelizes, such that the Church became an amalgamation of the very best thoughts of the Jews, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Syrians, North Africans, Visigoths, Anglo-Saxons, Franks, etc… and even, in later times, of the Japanese (look into the work St. Francis Xavier did with them, once upon a time). The Catholic Faith defends the right of peoples to retain their proper cultures and to develop their native genius, and has always recognized that varieties of rites and national customs. This has resulted in a wonderful balance, whereby the Church recommends what is best from all cultures, and yet each individual culture finds its own way of manifesting this universal wisdom as best it may. Officially, the Church condemns race suicide and mass migration; the apostasy of the hierarchy in modern times is another, complex matter.
       European man attained his greatest heights, as I said, in the Church; the Church is the soul of the fully ennobled Europe, and is the only way for European man to recover even what was native and natural to him, to say nothing of what was above his nature.

34. How do you combine the catholic doctrine with the principles of game and neomasculinity?

    1. You’ll be hard pressed to find a more potent example of masculinity than Jesus. As far as ‘secular’ values are concerned, Catholic doctrine places heavy emphasis on family, duty, integrity, and on always striving to be better (mostly, a better Christian).

    2. To me, the main insights of game are simply the acknowledgment of reality – i.e., the natural dynamics between the sexes. Certainly we see this in the Bible and Traditon, but really it is just common sense.
       Neomasculinity is simply the idea that men need to rediscover the founts of masculine wisdom and virtue, and to become better men. This, also, is recommended by Scripture and Tradition and is, really, just common sense.
       Was there a specific conflict you had in mind?

       1. A lot of guys here recommend using “game” to seduce women into fornication, and/or adulterous sexual relations. I’m sure that you do not recommend such immoral actions.
          I though your response made a lot of sense. I feel similarly. I am a married man. I want to become more masculine, and to become a better leader for my wife and any children that God may give us (and yes, also have a lot of sex with my wife). I do not want to go around seducing women in general.

          1. Bart the truth is, in today’s climate you cannot land yourself a decent wife unless you have practice gaming other women. Social skills, emotional intelligence, etc…. as men we have to give her those emotional triggers. Only men with experience can really do that. If a man is a virgin a woman is likely to get bored with him and not really know why.
             Men lead the entire ‘mating dance’. you have to really know what you’re doing.

35. First of all thanks for that email you sent to all of us in regards to orthodox and catholic, I’m still getting through all the information you gave us as well as the debate on youtube.
    One thing that has distressed me lately has been news here in Australia of All these church leaders trying to guilt the public to accept all these Syrian Rapeugees. The dishonest media keeps putting up these pictures of babies at the detention centres trying to get at our emotions and the local christian leaders are actively trying to promote ‘Sanctuary’ at the local churches. Heres one of the leaders right here in Brisbane, though this is Anglican. It’s like none of them know of the history between Islam and Christianity, Or Islam vs Hindus etc.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-04/churches-offer-sanctuary-to-asylum-seekers/7138484
    Shit like this makes me understand why catholicism didn’t practice ecumenism till Vatican II. (If I understand it correctly, so much to learn on that I fear)
    I honestly don’t know if I can take the first step in going to the local Catholic church here Br Aurelius. I’m fortunate in that I don’t have to put up with Liberal/left leaning fuckwits at my work or at a university or Tafe, but to go to a church and introduce myself to people so willing to bring in people that follow the great enemy of life that is Islam, is just infuriating. I don’t know if there really is a presence of “Sedevanticists” in Brisbane mate, I enjoy reading these articles of yours and learning more of the catholic faith but it saddens me I may have to do this alone.

    1. Yes, doing much of this alone is the heavy burden of our time. But let us try to find joy and consolation in it; God’s providence has so willed it, and I am sure He will reward those who struggle to keep the flame alive in this time of near total darkness.
       I would absolutely not go to the local, “official,” “catholic,” parish. False Ecumenism is actually a condemned heresy in the Catholic Church, so those who practice or promote it in spite of the doctrine of the Church, are not Catholics. In the early and middle 20th century, many infiltrators entered the Catholic Church (and other churches), along with the schools, news media, etc. It is no coincidence that they are now using their pulpits, newspapers and tenured professorial chairs to deal the death-blow to the civilization they have all sworn to destroy. May God avenge Himself upon them, in His way and time. And, if He wishes us to participate, may He let us know. But I think in this case, God has reserved the punishment to Himself, so despicable are His enemies in these latter days. In the meantime, let us try not to be amongst their number.

       1. Thanks for this article. I’ve gotten a lot out of this and your previous articles. I was raised atheist and protestant (long story) but have found myself drawn to the Latin Mass, which I had attended at St Agnes in Manhattan.
          My wife and I recently moved to Dallas where we found Mater Dei. Do you know much about FSSP? How would you compare it to the local “progressive” parish? I believe you have mentioned SSPX before.

       2. I managed to find a SSPX parish that you’ve mentioned before and went to mass today (Sunday here in Aus). I must admit I was out of my comfort zone as I decided just to rock up to see what it was like. The people I sat next to were helpful and showed me where abouts in the book to read from for the ordinary mass I think it was called. There was alot of intermittent kneeling whilst standing and I was pretty confused.
          After it was over the women next to me said she’d introduce me to the priest. He seemed surprised that I would just decide to come by myself and what spurned me to do so, I said it was mostly from doing research online and being told that SSPX was different from most catholics.
          He gave me an email address where I could speak to him further and encouraged me to come sometime during the week. I don’t really know what to discuss with him, How would I go about saying that I decided to come to church? I’m not really going to say that I was convinced to come by talking to a monk on an infamous website that was all over the International media recently…

          1. Ah, I got a good belly laugh out of this.
             Well, you could just say that you were curious on the web one day and looked into the Catholic Faith, and were interested in some of the things you saw. (Have you gone to any links I’ve shared? Have you seen any other Catholic sites on the web? Tell him you went to them.) Most SSPX priests would probably well understand a man who came in and said, that he had been thinking about how important and priceless the European heritage was, and the tradition of masculinity and virtue, and that he wanted to preserve these things from the decadence all around us.
             Of course, that alone would not be reason to convert; he’ll want to know that you have Faith in Jesus Christ, and believe that the Catholic Church was the Church He founded, before he’ll baptize you/receive you into communion. The modern crisis in the Church, long predicted and consequent to 2000 years of miraculous integrity, is to my mind a confirmation of the Church’s status, not a derogation therefrom.

36. Always enjoy articles. I like to use my morning prayer book from Eastern Orthodox. Try to do evening also but usually fall asleep in my recliner listening to the radio. Do not get around to it.

    1. Here’s a helpful hint from St. Cuthbert for staying awake for evening prayers.
       Go stand in a lake until your prayers are done. I haven’t tried it yet, but a lot of people swear it really works.

       1. There is a dirty polluted creek with some sewer seepage about 20 yards from my house. Would that work. ?

          1. Are you humble enough?

          2. never thought about it that way

          3. Well, I’m certainly not humble enough. When I read what you wrote, I laughed at the humor – but then, it struck me that perhaps a very humble saint would do something like that, and would make me look like a fool.

          4. Morning prayers go well with coffee so they are easy to remember. Even prayers are after dinner and wine, so I fall asleep in my recliner. My wife wakes me up around 9:00 and tells me to go to bed so I want sleep there all night. I like to get up at 4:oo. Good time to walk the dog. Read the news etc. After morning prayers.
             My prayer book has for morning prayers Trisagion prayers, Tropartia to the Holy Trinity. A prayer to the holy trinity, Another prayer (literally), the creed (eastern version), A prayer (literally), prayer for the living, prayer for the dead, Tropartia to the theotokos,
             I only aattend Eastern Orthodox. Grew up protestant. Still am pressbyterian as for official membership.
             But I prefer the orthodox. They are the most conservative. Male priests, most ancient rites, Feel like I am stepping into a time vault when I go there.

          5. Yeah, I know the feeling. Christianity as it used to be.
             You can also find it in the few, real Catholic Churches, too; though Modernism has taken it’s toll, and they are often content with lower standards of beauty in the chants, architecture and sacred imagery in their temples.

37. Say a prayer for the USA. Who is going to defend her with army generals fainting like this?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDtBjiq3d_s

    1. Remember when Petraeus fainted, too?

       1. I think it’s them acting out to avoid the grilling.

    2. It may be a total betrayal of my of love of 80s movies but I wish I were Russian sometimes.

38. My own thoughts on set prayers echo yours precisely. The ‘spontaneous’ prayers I’ve heard are always rehashes of the same old thing, but clumsily and superficially phrased. “Lord, Father, Jesus we um… yeah… just wanna… Lord… um… just er… yeah. Amen”.
    Personally I love the old Book of Common Prayer e.g.:
    “We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins
    and wickedness,
    which we from time to time most grievously have committed,
    by thought, word, and deed, against thy divine Majesty,
    provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us.
    We do earnestly repent,
    and are heartily sorry for these our misdoings;”

    1. There are many beautiful things in the BCP. The Sarum Rite was one of the most beautiful in Europe, and left its mark even as the Protestants moved away from many elements of Catholic liturgy. The text and arrangement of collects for the BCP is derived from the Sarum, slightly different from the pure Roman form of the Roman Rite; and of course, much as I dislike Cranmer in other ways, he had a skill for beautiful prose.

39. During the recent meetup kerfuffle I couldn’t help think of your articles. The media was condemning ROK as a rabid pro-rape extremist group. In reality we’ve just had a series on promoting greater sincerity in prayer. You couldn’t make it up!

    1. Well, that was the real reason they want to forbid men from getting together – men who are interested in bettering themselves, learning about virtue, who are ready to take control and lead both sexes to a better way of living? That’s what they’ve spent the past 60 years trying deliberately to destroy! The site has always had a strong element of self-improvement – and even I recognize that a large element of game, involves self-improvement, if one were to focus only on game – but the site has moved well beyond a mere game site, and that is precisely what they’re worried about.
       Mere promiscuity and rape culture is what they want. Their jobs and worldviews depend upon it.

40. I used to pray the Shemona Esre {a fixed prayer in the Jewish Prayer-book} every day three times with a lot of fervor. The fact that it was fixed did not stop me from deep intentions. Private chatting with G-d was something I started later but did not think my intentions in these private chats were any more deep or sincere. They can be. But the fact that they were spontaneous did nothing to add to sincerity.

    1. Exactly; there is room for depth and sincerity in either form and, in my experience, only somebody who can pray both ways, is going to really grow in prayer. Each form reinforces the other – the rote prayers teach us how God wishes us to think of Him, and provide a way to connect even when our inner resources are depleted; more spontaneous prayer builds an whole other kind of rapport, which then intensifies the rote prayers as we say them. Each builds on the other, continually.

41. Brother Aurelius, I´d like to manifest my interest in learning how to pray the Psalms (the Office).
    Congratulations for the illuminating articles!

    1. Thanks, and duly noted!
       By the way, I was planning on sending you a message; while devotion to the Immaculate Heart is important for our days, it is actually devotion to the Immaculate and Sorrowful Heart of the Virgin, that best answers to your particular need. So, learn about both!

42. I am discovering that I knew next to nothing about Catholicism, so thank you for these articles.
    I hope anyone reading these and saying:
    “Well, what about (insert religion)?”
    Please contribute an article on the subject.
    There is so much I’ve yet to learn and I enjoy the subject of theology.

43. I’m following lent, avoiding watching porn and visiting chat sites. Day 2. So far, so good.

    1. Only 45 days left!

       1. I’m hoping I can build momentum and go on a run of being free from it.

          1. I think you can. My first year without sins of the flesh, began with a Lent. Remember, God enables you to do all you can – and, after you have done all you can, God does what you cannot do, and leads you to the victory. One must avoid two errors: one, of trying to repent entirely under one’s own power and strength; the other, of mistaking the fact that we must rely entirely on God, as meaning that you won’t have to work hard yourself.

          2. I’m doing really good with the flesh. Like a monk, so to speak.
             But the sloth is killing me.

          3. It can be done, trust me. Blessings.

44. To pray to Mary is idolatry…
    Luke 11:27-28 ESV / 23 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful
    As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
    John 14:6 ESV / 5 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful
    Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

    1. I do not pray to Mary. I revere her and look to her as inspiration for ideal womanhood since I am not a man. She is a model of strength, faith and acceptance of God’s will regardless of the sacrifices required of us to accept it.

    2. Two things can be said to this. First, the use of “rather” in this verse is an hold over from the King James Version, at a time when the word “rather” more strongly retained its sense of “more so.” It still means this, as when we say “it’s rather cold” to mean “it’s colder than usual.” Old Greek and Latin grammars often used “rather” and “quite” to explain comparatives, with “rather” meaning “more/greater” and “quite” meaning “most/greatest.” From this, we get its adversative sense: “I’d rather go out” means “Going out is greater/more for me.” “Rather than that,” means “even better/more (than that).”
       They chose this English term, because that is what the Greek term in this verse means. The term is μενοῦν, a contraction of μὲν ὀῦν, which means, “Yes, and furthermore,” or “yes indeed,” or “now indeed,” etc. For example, the term also occurs in Phillipians 3:8, where the term is translated as “yea, doubtless” (KJV), “more than that” (NASB), “and what is more” (NIV; IV), “yea, verily” (ASV) and “yes, indeed” (Young’s Literal). The term occurs again in Hebrews 7:11, as an hypothesis preceded by “if,” where it is translated “if then, indeed” (Darby, Young’s) and “if, therefore” (King James), etc.
       Strong’s Greek Lexicon, a Protestant work, specifically cites Luke 11:28 in describing the meaning of the term μενοῦν, saying: “μέν οὖν (in Luke 11:28 T Tr WH μενοῦν), Latin quidem igitur, (English so then, now therefore, verily, etc.), where μέν is confirmatory of the matter in hand, and οὖν marks an inference or transition.”
       Thus, we can see that it would be very wrong, to interpret our Lord as contradicting what was said, when His words are “confirmatory of the matter in hand,” transitioning thence to a related inference. Those Protestants who deliberately mistranslate the verse as “no, on the contrary” should fear for the knowing and deliberate violence they have done to the Scriptures; but this is commonly done in Protestant translations. We can see clearly that, in response to the idea that our Lord’s mother was truly blessed, our Lord answered “yea, doubtless, blessed indeed are they who hear the Word of God and keep it.”
       And this is consonant with that other sentence of the Scriptures:
       “From henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.” Luke 1:48
       The orthodox interpretation of Luke 11:28, which the Catholic Faith establishes and maintains, allows both verses to be true, as befits Holy Writ; but the Protestant interpretation that our Lord hereby contradicted the woman, pits the Scriptures against themselves. For if the Holy Ghost declares that all generations shall call her blessed, why would our Lord correct a woman for doing so? Truly, He agreed with her and amplified her statement, going from the paradigm to the replica, as it were.
       How so? Those who cleave to the Apostolic Faith, know that our Lord actually highights His mother here in a special way: for who has ever heard and kept the word of God, better than the blessed Virgin Mary? We read the Word of God written in a book, but she heard the Word of God from the very mouth of God’s messenger, the Archangel Gabriel. Hearing the Word of God, she consented in faith. And as she heard and kept the Word in this outer way, the power of the Most High, of the Holy Ghost, overshadowed her, and the Word was made Flesh, in her, from her and through her. Thus, the blessed Virgin is the example par excellence of all who hear the Word of God and keep It, for only she heard the Word of God, and conceived Him in her unstained womb, keeping Him there in faith and adoration for nine months, and “pondered all these things in her heart” (Luke 2:19) ever thereafter. That is why “all generations call her blessed,” and is why those of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith confess her to be the most highly blessed of all creatures that ever have been, or ever will be, created.

       1. Whether she is blessed or not is irrelevant. There is only one way to the father and that is through Jesus. To pray to her is idolatry and nothing you wrote disproves that. Furthermore, praying to so called “saints” is also idolatry. One should not pray to a dead human being, only God. Mary was a human as were the Catholic saints. In the Scripture, all believers in Christ are referred to as Saints.
          Jesus said call no man Rabbi or Father and yet…
          There is no basis for a Pope. If Peter thought of himself that way, he would have created a mechanism for succession which he didn’t. The first pope comes centuries later.
          Catholicism builds a wall between the individual and Christ which renders the Catholic Faith the work of the devil. The current Antichrist Pope said this recently: that one can not have a personal relationship with Christ. This is blasphemy.
          Clearly you are a Catholic as I once was. I implore you to seek Christ on your own and abandon the false Christian faith of Catholicism
          Matthew 12:46-50 ESV / 29 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful
          While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”.
          1 Timothy 2:5 ESV / 86 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful
          For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

          1. Scroll down the thread for answers to every objection you made. I’d give a longer reply but I’m on a mobile and there are already a couple of thousand words on this article of Catholic replies to angry Protestants.

          2. “idolatry” is a Greek word, which means “the adoration of images as though they were gods.” Asking fellow Christians to pray for us, or to help us, is not idolatry by any stretch of the term.
             Neither does asking our fellow Christians’ prayers, mean that we are seeking “another way to the Father.” It derogates nothing from our Lord’s glory and honor; indeed, realizing that He has taken so many into His friendship, and joined them to Himself, and granted them a share in the dispensation of His heavenly kingship, increases His glory and honor. And what would the saints be, unless Jesus Christ had saved them, joined them to Himself, called them His friends, and given them their share in administering His kingdom? To go to the saints is to go to Jesus Christ, since He is glorious in His saints, and reigns in them. My relationship with Christ is intensified and elevated by recognizing Him in His friends and ministers.
             And, there is no way to Jesus Christ, but through His mother, by whom He came to us. His last act on earth, was to commend her to the care of His most beloved disciple, and him to her. And, just reflect on this truth: in Baptism, we are joined to the Body of Christ; we become members of Christ. Whence does Christ’s Body come? Whence His flesh and members? From the Blessed Virgin, obviously. From the font of regeneration, we all rise as the sons of Mary, just as He is. I am not ashamed to have His mother for my own, just as He has not been ashamed to make me a member of Himself.
             I was raised an atheist; I became a Southern-Baptist (really more non-denominational Evangelical); I read some history and realized the first Christians were not Protestants, and initially thought the Eastern Orthodox Christians were closest to the early faith – and in terms of some of the external elements, they are; but after learning Greek and Latin more thoroughly, and studying the writings of the early Christians and Councils more closely, I came to see that the Catholics still perdured in the ancient and Apostolic Faith – not apostates like Francis, etc., but actual, traditional Catholics.
             I would encourage you to do some more in-depth studying – perhaps read the writings of Scott Hahn, for starters. Also, read the Apostolic Fathers – Clement, Polycarp, Ignatios of Antioch, etc. – and you will see that the first Christians were not Protestants by any means. My experience, has been that the least-educated Catholics wind up becoming Protestants because it is intellectually facile; but the best-educated Protestants always wind up leaving, for the Catholic or Orthodox. Protestantism simply has no credible claim to be the faith of the Bible or the early Christians.

          3. idolatry: extreme admiration, love, or reverence for something or someone.
             Just like a Catholic to make up your own definitions. The second to last resort of a failed argument. Ad hominem being the last.
             “And, there is no way to Jesus Christ, but through His mother, by whom He came to us.”
             Are you sure about that? If so, I feel sorry for you my brother. Jesus never said to pray to his friends. That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.
             “My experience, has been that the least-educated Catholics wind up becoming Protestants because it is intellectually facile; but the best-educated Protestants always wind up leaving, for the Catholic or Orthodox. ”
             I was raised Catholic and went to twelve years of Catholic school so please don’t tell me about educated Catholics. That’s an oxymoron. Catholicism is for the lazy who need the scripture interpreted by homosexual priests.
             Check out James White who debates many Roman Catholics. They are on Youtube for your pleasure.

          4. I read them as well as watched many debates on the subject. Their arguments lack biblical substance. That’s the problem.

          5. Then you ought to know that you already started at aporia since no other branch of Christianity, whether orthodox or heretical, ever claimed private interpretation of scripture as ultimate authority. Catholics simply don’t accept your premise. Would you be convinced if I constantly appealed to various popes’ encyclicals?
             But even if we accept the Scripture as sole authority, none of Calvinism’s tenets hold up.
             I’ve watched most of James Whites debates and am not impressed with him (but at least hes not Matt Slick). He also whines and lies that Catholics won’t debate him when there are about three dozen debates on YouTube on multiple topics and probably a lot more that aren’t online. It isn’t the Catholic Church’s job to provide him with a platform and income (he’s constantly asking for donations to fund travel and books) for the rest of his life. He’s also openly rude to Catholics while being obseqeously polite to his Muslim opponents, all of whom are awful and dishonest debaters and many of whom have terrorist ties. This hits me the wrong way.
             I’m sorry but were you actually Catholic? I only ask because you used the typical “call no man father” argument. Has it ever worked? Did you not think there hasn’t been an answer in 2000 years and that one is gonna stump us? An ex-Catholic would just never think this would actually work. Its a street preacher style “gotcha” argument that only impresses the ignorant and apathetic.
             And I find that there are a lot of “Bible Christians” who falsely claim to be former Catholics. They’ll literally say things like “I left the Church because the priests told me I shouldn’t be reading the Bible so much.” Do they not know that this is all we do in catechism class? Do they even bother to look into what it is they oppose?
             Sorry if I’m wrong but that’s just my impression. I really recommend reading the Church Fathers. An honest reading will inevitability lead toward the Church’s positions. Even a lot of Bible reading outside the box of Calvinism will lead you there.
             I don’t have the patience for apologetics since it inevitability leads to answering the same objections over and over, some of them weighty, but most of them something a two minute google search would answer definitively.
             I’ll let Aurelius handle this from now on.

          6. “But even if we accept the Scripture as sole authority, none of Calvinism’s tenets hold up.”
             Jim, the beginning of that statement is exactly the point. There is only one divine inspiration and that is the Word of God. I’m not a Calvanist but James White seems to have a complete grasp of the Word and it’s history. And no, Catholics don’t want to debate him because he destroys them every chance he gets.
             “I’m sorry but were you actually Catholic? I only ask because you used the typical “call no man father” argument. Has it ever worked? Did you not think there hasn’t been an answer in 2000 years and that one is gonna stump us?”
             Catholics have lots of responses but that doesn’t mean they are adequate. And yes, that argument does work because the scripture is clear.
             You’re not sorry, by the way.

          7. Um so Im right? You were lying?
             I should know better than to continue, but James Whites sister converted to Catholicism. Guess he wasn’t persuasive enough to convince her. And how can you justify telling everyone that there are multiple debates online but in the same breath claim people are afraid to debate him?
             Do you call your dad “father” then? Because Jesus clearly said “no man.” Your teacher “doctor”? Or anyone “mister”? Because those are both Latin for teacher and you are forbidden from calling a man that too. But you know all this since it’s been addressed twice in this article’s comments, unless you are lying about actually reading them too.

          8. I was raised Catholic and went to twelve years of Catholic school. I didn’t feel the need to repeat myself. Would you like to see my report cards?
             James White’s sister is irrelevant. She has her own mind and can be misled or perhaps did it to appease her husband. I truly don’t know but that is certainly not Mr. White’s shortcoming. It is hers.
             No, I don’t call my dad father. I call him dad.
             The ancient texts are in Hebrew and Greek primarily, not Latin. Another Catholic problem of translation from the original texts.
             You seem very upset Jim.

          9. OK by your own logic then I can call whoever I like father so long as I don’t call him pater or abba.
             You seem borderline retarded Joseph.

          10. Ding ding ding… There it is…. The old Ad hominem.
              The last refuge of a failed argument.
              God Bless you my brother…

          11. It wasn’t an attack. Your points are honestly dumb. I’m pretty sure you’re a troll at this point.
              Do you really think that people who call their father “father” are sinning? Or not realize that dad and father are synonymous?
              Are you one of those asshole street preachers? I admit they are funny but the tactics they use don’t work when the people are writing to each other.
              I say this because you seem to be trying to duplicate their weird tactics in a written form. You oddly thought it important that I be upset when there was no indication that I was. I already told you I’ve heard all your simplistic objections before, on this very forum no less. How could I be upset at things I read an hour before and have heard Protestants repeat for years? Instead of taking the time to read or make a positive case you claim that I’m being irrationally angry and claim victory? Am I close?
              What conclusion am I supposed to reach except that you are acting in bad faith or are just dumb?
              Out of charity I’ll give you a chance to make a positive case: In the 1500 years between Christ and Luther where was the visible Church?

          12. “No, I don’t call my dad father. I call him dad.”
              And that’s the Modernist heresy in a nutshell. Thanks for the laughs! Though, I shouldn’t laugh, so I’ll also say: thanks for the remorse.

          13. “My” definition is the actual meaning of the Greek term. “idolon” = image; “latreia’ = “divine worship.” Your definition is… your definition.
              Jesus never said NOT to pray to His friends. Come to think of it, Jesus never told you to drive to work in the morning. How can you justify your unbiblical morning commute?
              Buddy, I’ve met lots of Catholics who went to 12 years of Catholic school. In case you haven’t noticed, there is an wholesale apostasy ravaging the Catholic Church, and supposed cardinals of the Roman curia cannot all agree on whether butt-sex and divorce are cool or not. So, forgive me if I don’t assume that your Catholic education was remotely accurate or complete.
              I have seen James White debate; he is always at tangents from the point.

          14. “Modernist heresy”?
              The only heresy here is referring to homosexual pedophiles as your spiritual father on earth.
              Keep laughing my brother. It won’t be so funny when our Lord returns.

          15. Stay classy, Joe.

          16. I have.
              Tell me, is laughing at someone “classy”? Or how about the ad hominem attacks levied against me by your fellow Catholic Jim?
              I don’t think so.
              Seek Christ Jesus!

          17. You seem upset Joe.

          18. Looks like I’m living rent free in your head.
              You lost this debate my brother. Better luck next time.

          19. You have a unique definition of both winning and debate.
              And you can’t come up with anything better than that?

          20. When one resorts to an ad hominem attack, the debate is over and they lose.
              Oh, you want more? Here you go…
              http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/02/15/popes-efforts-stop-church-child-abuse-appear-unravel/80394122/

          21. There was never any debate. You failed to answer a single objection except by pretending you can’t understand simple English. When I said you were either acting in bad faith or stupid (I now believe it is both) you claimed victory. I don’t know what your point is with the article since I could just as easily point out corrupt Protestants (look at Ted Haggard for one).
              I’ll give you one more chance: where was the church between the apostles and Luther? Who was teaching the protestant doctrine of salvation before the reformation? When do you think the church was corrupted? Who was saved after this corruption occurred? Can you give names of possible saints? If this corruption is the fault of the papacy then why are the eastern orthodox so similar to Catholics?
              I have yet to see a protestant even try to make a positive case for their positions. Here’s your big chance.

          22. Wow…
              It never ceases to amaze me how Catholics are so willing to sweep under the rug the institutionalized molestation and rape of young boys. Even the popular homo loving pope can’t seem to get a handle on it. I wonder why… /sarcasm
              Ask yourself… Do you really believe Jesus Christ is present in a church that moves pedophiles around from one Parrish to the next to prey on the innocent? /rhetorical

          23. The position of every traditional Catholic is that the Church is under unprecedented assault both within and without by the satanic forces of modernity. This has long ago been foretold by Our Lady at Fatima and Akita as well as numerous apparitions from two centuries prior. You won’t get an argument from me that the situation indeed isn’t dire.
              As for my questions I’ll just take your response as “don’t know”.

          24. Well, we certainly agree on one thing.
              As a former Catholic, I have considered many of those questions and have come down on the Protestant side of things. I do not further engage with people who do not show me the slightest bit of respect in a conversation, which you exemplify. That said, I still love my Christian brothers and sisters and wish you the best. I hope you will seek Christ Jesus on your own without the intercession of the Catholic Church. I assure you, it has been the best thing I have ever done for myself. God Bless…

45. I like the Jesus Prayer, simple yet effective.
    “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner”

    1. What is Prayer? “Prayer is…..a useful means of getting purity of heart through the destruction of sin and the reception of virtues” and “Prayer is….the ascent of the mind to God”

    2. Me too. I think that one all the time

46. Though I don’t agree with much of your theology I do find this really interesting. I am most interested in St. Thomas Aquinas because of how he perfected Aristotle’s philosophy.

47. Some beautiful quotes by Alexis Carrel, Nobel Prize (Medicine):
    Man offers himself to God. He stands before Him like the canvas before the painter or the marble before the sculptor. At the same time he asks for His grace, expresses his needs and those of his brothers in suffering. Such a type of prayer demands complete renovation. The modest, the ignorant, and the poor are more capable of this self-denial than the rich and the intellectual.
    Dr. Alexis Carrel
    There are no watertight compartments in our inmost nature.
    Dr. Alexis Carrel
    Too many people regard prayer as a formalized routine of words, a refuge for weaklings, or a childish petition for material things. We sadly undervalue prayer when we conceive it in these terms, just as we should underestimate rain by describing it as something that fills the birdbath in our garden. Properly understood, prayer is a mature activity indispensable to the fullest development of personality the ultimate integration of man’s highest faculties. Only in prayer do we achieve that complete and harmonious assembly of body, mind and spirit which gives the frail human reed its unshakable strengths.
    Dr. Alexis Carrel
    If you make a habit of sincere prayer, your life will be very noticeably and profoundly altered. Prayer stamps with its indelible mark our actions and demeanor. A tranquillity of bearing, a facial and bodily repose, are observed in those whose inner lives are thus enriched. Within the depths of consciousness a flame kindles. And man sees himself. He discovers his selfishness, his silly pride, his fears, his greeds, his blunders. He develops a sense of moral obligation, intellectual humility. Thus begins a journey of the soul toward the realm of grace.
    Dr. Alexis Carrel
    Prayer is a force as real as terrestrial gravity. As a physician, I have seen men, after all other therapy had failed, lifted out of disease and melancholy by the serene effort of prayer. Only in prayer do we achieve that complete and harmonious assembly of body, mind and spirit which gives the frail human reed its unshakable strength.
    Dr. Alexis Carrel

    1. Good stuff

    2. Thank you for sharing these excellent words.

       1. Dr. Carrel was later maligned by The Powers That Be for espousing wise matrimonial practices, then known as eugenics.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_Carrel

48. Happy fasting Cui. Great Article.

49. Just wanted to let men know I’m having trouble with the main webpage. In the meantime, find the prayers and brief prayer rules I mentioned, here:
    https://jedithun.wordpress.com/
    Or, more exactly, here:
    https://jedithun.wordpress.com/blog/

    1. Hey Brother, I liked your article. I had some questions for you. I was wondering what is the best way to contact you?

       1. I have a gmail address with this handle, no spaces in the name.

50. WOW. Can you guys please stop talking about Christianity when you know nothing about it’s teachings?

    1. I think you’ll find that many of us are pretty knowledgeable. Unless your definition of Christianity is “be nice to everyone no matter what” then I claim total ignorance.

       1. I think the Golden Rule disqualifies all TRP theory

          1. TRP?

          2. TRP = Transurethral Resection of the Prostate.

          3. Kinky gal apparently.

          4. Oh “the red pill.” I’m slow on the uptake I guess. I’m a little new to the lingo. Google gave me “truck replacement parts” inter alia.

          5. If she’s really kinky, maybe she meant transrectal probe. Let’s see what the others come up with.

          6. Oh, I hate that.

          7. the RED PILL :))

51. Catholic monk? Yeah right. Ever read the writings of Pope John Paul II??

    1. Aurelius is a Sedevacantist.
       I’ve read his works on the theology of the body. What’s your point?

       1. Oh yes, of course. So not a Catholic. Just a cultist.
          Well that makes me feel better.

          1. OK are you here just to name call? I’m not a Sedevacantist but considering that saints have suffered torture fighting things Francis often gives approval to, I can sympathize a little.
             In the spirit of charity I’ll give you one more chance before I just assume you’re a crazy person. What was your point about JP II?

          2. “saints have suffered torture fighting things Francis often gives approval to” Like?
             As for Papa JPII, I know all Catholics are not ex cathedra, but as a Catholic I would expect someone to at least respect on of the greatest Popes. Pope JPII was very pro-woman, you cannot possibly respect Pope JPII and still be a misogynist like the writer of this article. His book ‘love and responsibility’ is absolutely incredible.

          3. Saints have died fighting
             Communism: After receiving a soviet hammer and sickle soldered to a small crucifix by the Bolivian president as a “gift” instead of rebuking him and walking out he calmly poses for the camera with it. He made sure to clarify later that it absolutely did not offend him after Vatican PR (a sisyphean job if there ever was one) tried to say he called it “inappropriate.”
             The desecration of marriage: just look up saint Thomas More. Francis’ pet project, the synod of the family, was an attempt to make annulments as easy as no fault divorce.
             Islam: Francis has prayed with various Muslim leaders and has opened churches and charities to the current invaders. With a word he can make it every faithful Catholic’s duty to drive them from Europe. He’s also prayed toward mecca.
             Abortion: he started his so called year of mercy with emphasis on forgiving women who have had abortions apparently whether or not they feel remorse.
             Francis just isn’t the strong leader we need right now. If you don’t think the Church is in an unprecedented crisis, I don’t know what to say other than “look around”.
             I haven’t read the book you’ve mentioned but I have enjoyed the one book I’ve read by him. I’ll check it out.

          4. Umm I was following the whole annulment thing because I didnt want divorce to be legal. All it was about was to make the whole process of annulment more streamlined. It didn’t change the Church’s position at all.
             Abortion… Look I had an abortion when I was in HS. My parents made me get it. I’m very much pro life and have hated myself for it forever and wondered if I could ever be forgiven. I loved his position on that… He is very pro-life and to paint him as being pro-abortion or whatever is dishonest.
             Papa Francis will only be around for a year or two more. I think he’s done plenty of good things for the Church.
             Definitely check it out! I think it may lead you away from the red pill… It was published under his name before the papacy, so the author is Karol Wojtyla.

          5. You also forgot the change of rites. If one looks at the things the Anglicans wanted to do in England back in the day, it essentially looks like the Novus Ordo: downplay the priesthood, remove actual rites of blessing, move in a more “Lord’s Supper/Symbol” direction with the Eucharist, severely limit or even exclude sacred images, downplay the connection of the Church Militant with the Church Triumphant (i.e., minimize or eliminate devotion and prayer to the Saints, veneration of their relics), eliminate supererogatory or “superstitious” works of penance, etc., etc.
             Today’s Conciliar church is essentially Protestant – its rites were written by Protestants and apostates, its temples have no savor of the sacred in their architecture, imagery or music, it lacks all sense of asceticism and mortification, the Saints have been reduced to mere “role models” (while veneration of their relics would be met with disgust and horror) and it pushes a Modernist theology. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, and his other philosophical works, seem impressive to modern minds precisely because they have not been trained in the greater precision and rigor of the Church’s authentic theological schools (JPII was a phenomenologist, and passed Modernist philosophy off as “theology;” look here for a starter on how his Theology of the Body pulled up the prior Tradition by the roots; check out the “related reading” at the bottom of the page, too).
             As you very truly said: Catholics died resisting such iconoclasm, anti-clericalism, de-spiritualization, pseudo-spiritualization and heresy at the dawn Protestant crisis; at its twilight, however, the great delusion has induced Catholics to draw nigh with willing hearts. Virgo Maria, Sedes Sapientiae, salva nos!

          6. Thanks. I’ll check it out. It has been years since I’ve read anything by him so maybe I got a wrong impression.

          7. No, it’s understandable. We’ve all been formed in a Modernist mindset, and JPII was a master of knowing how to tap in to that. It takes an heroic effort, almost, to overcome that these days, and discover just how radical the departure from the Tradition and Magisterium has been. Most of us, myself included, still harbor many views that are influenced by various latter-day heresies, which have been popularized through the Media and Education systems of modernity; we drink it in with our mother’s milk, so to speak.
             This is what the popes warned about prior to the 60s – that anti-Catholic forces were ramping up an humanist indoctrination throughout all society, such that most Catholics, even, were coming unmoored from the infallible and unchanging fountains of Tradition. They even hinted that a coming anti-pope was likely, in their publication and commentary on the Alta Vendita. It really is an uphill climb, to return to the clear, sound thinking that, just a century ago, most decent men knew and believed.

    2. Ever read the writings of dozens of sainted Fathers and Doctors of the Church from the days before JPII got around to smooching Korans?

       1. The Catholic Church has been pretty pro-woman for the last 100-200 years. You picked the wrong religion

          1. We don’t engage women in debate, here (something which had momentarily slipped my mind), so this will be my last post on this sub-thread, and it is addressed to the male readership, for their benefit.
             The Catholic Church is pro-everyone’s authentic good. If, by “pro-woman,” one means the Catholic Church has adapted identity politics and takes the side of women, qua women, against other groups, or that it advances what women decide, today, that they want – rather than what women really need – then obviously such a person is wrong. Such an organization would not be Catholic, a word which means “faithful to the integral whole.”
             Since the 1960s, the vast majority of Latin-Rite hierarchs, including a string of anti-popes, have repeatedly demonstrated their deliberate infidelity to the ancient and concordant Magisterium of the Church; by the laws and doctrines of the Catholic Church Herself, any who do such a thing are automatically excommunicated, without the need of any declaratory sentence. This state of affairs was long predicted in Scripture, Tradition, approved prophecies and apparitions, and is thus not an absurd or improbable position to hold; it is, rather, a preeminently Catholic view.

52. Great post AM.

53. There are a number of prayers that I use from Christian tradition as well, but my two favorite are St. Patrick’s Breastplate and the Peace Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi.
    They are easily googled.

54. I’d also like to point out that the charge of repetitious prayer leveled at Catholics by Protestants over, say, the Rosary or any prayer of the Church shows a complete ignorance of how pagans “pray” and the context of the indictment against it.
    Raised a protestant, later turned (religious) pagan, I know a little bit about pagan religious practices. It consists of working yourself up into an emotional frenzy reciting the same incantations or names over and over.
    As with a druidic conjuration, ‘cum saxum saxorum endersum montum operum da…’, beginning slowly and ending in almost a frenzy.
    In retrospect, this sort of ritualistic emotionalism is very akin to the Protestant charismatic movement’s ‘speaking in tongues’, almost always initiated by loud music triggering frenzied emotionalism.
    My thoughts on the subject.

    1. Is the chant supposed to be Latin? Because if it is it appears to be nonsense. Endersum I’m pretty sure isn’t a word.
       My reading is “When the rock of rocks endersum of the mountains of works give.”
       “Give” here is a command. Is there more? The “cum” especially seems out of place unless there is some weird use of it with the imperative I’ve never seen before.

       1. I didn’t include the entire chant (hence the “…”), and I don’t have my old books (gave them to my priest to burn ’em) to give it verbatim.
          Also, I was remembering by a phonetic memorization. Very possible I spelled something incorrectly.

          1. Well did he tell you what it meant?

          2. Don’t recall exactly, but it’s called the conjuration of the dragon. It exists in several forms (probably available online somewhere) and was translated into Latin from Gaelic.
             It is wrapped up in druidic myth where the earth is the body of the dragon, and the mountain being its bones protruding from the body. I recall it being a conjuration of the dragon from the rocks of the mountain, the frenzied ritual ending in the stabbing of the earth with a sword to ‘awaken’ the deity from its sleep.
             [edit]
             Meant to answer, no, he didn’t. He received a whole lot more than just a page with one incantation 🙂

       2. A google search of “cum saxum saxonum” indicates that it was a chant invented for the 1981 film “Dragon Slayer,” which was then pawned off on Neo-Pagans as a legitimately Celtic spell through the “21 Lessons of Merlyn,” which claimed to be based on a never-before-published manuscript from the 16th century called “The Book of Pheryllt,” and to be a “complete course in authentic Celtic Druidism and Magick.”
          I admire the sincerity of our modern Neo-Pagans, and wish they could get over their issues and rejoin the Church. They would be natural Catholics, by which I mean they would be able to enter into the real spirit of Catholicism; the few traditional Catholics left often suffer from a dour legalism and, frankly, demoralization. The natural, rooted Catholicism as it was practiced before centuries of Modernism grinded down Catholic civilization, was a thing of integrity and beauty. Much has been lost in these bitter days.

          1. Ah. Well at least they picked a pretty good movie.

    2. Prayer in mystical Christianity is about drowning out all thoughts, once all thought and all outward sensory perception is shut down, you can begin to know your true self within. “From the knowledge of myself, i shall go onward to the knowledge of God”. Some may use chanting to whip up their followers into a frenzy, but true prayer is about tuning yourself into the right frequency in order for God grace to descend upon you, and is therefore deeply personal.
       See it like this: God’s grace is a like a radio station, constantly being emitted throughout the world. You are the radio, the only instrument in the world that can pick up the station. The goal of each individual therefore is to tune himself to the right frequency to pick up the Station. How do we tune ourselves to this frequency? Through self-knowledge, humility, silence and prayer; once we drown out the world, only then can we hear the faint sounds of God’s love within us. This love is uncreated light descending from the source of all Being, it is understanding, enlightenment, we therefore reject all (material) to possess All (Spiritual).

55. Nice article even though you are sectarian 🙂 . People like you here. That is good. Свѧты́й Бо́же, Свѧты́й Крѣ́пкый, Свѧты́й Безсме́ртный, поми́лyй на́съ.

    1. Thanks. 😉
       Господи Ісусе Христе Сыне Божїй помилѹй мѧ грѣшнаго.

56. As long as it gets you to a place higher than where you started- it’s all OK.

57. Prayer?! JESUS!? You guys are fucking gay.

58. Brother Aurelius, have you seen this?
    http://www.catholicgentleman.net
    I do like the logo!

59. Roosh, bro, pls wipe this shit away from hear and give a good namaz instead. Those who don’t accept dawah r not worthy anyway. Useless human crap, screw em and return home, brother, where is your place. Invite the cool ppl to the party, throw rowdi betas out. NOW!

60. One very inspirational performance by my cousin in law:

    
    مزمار من مزامير آل داوود
    Posted by ‎جامعة حلوان‎ on Saturday, March 28, 2015

61. For anyone wishing to deepen their Catholicism, I have found this blog invaluable. It is not my own.
    https://littlestsouls.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/50-counsels-to-ease-our-worries-and-bring-us-joy/

62. Aurelius, I was curious as to whether or not you have read any Julius Evola and what your opinions are on his writing. (I was gonna write out some of my observations but until I know whether or not you are familiar, it would just be a waste).

63. Ghosts are not real, retards. Jesus is worm shit. Even Socrates
    questioned ghosts existing. And guess what? They are not real. Your fag
    Jew is long dead. Judaism and Islam even make more sense (if you are a
    retarded sand-nigger, anyway). Christianity is basically another brand
    of atheism (no gods but Jesus even though Jesus’ ghost is not real).
    Either admit you are atheist kike lovers that pretend Ghost Busters is real or start worshipping Anubis’ toes like good boys. Deus Pita awaits your choice.

Comments are closed.