A Dialogue With A Pious Monk

One of Return of Kings’s strengths is its ability to attract and hold the attention of men from startlingly diverse backgrounds. Just how diverse, readers will this week discover. Regular readers may recognize the name Cui Pertinebit. He has added his lengthy and informed opinions in the comments sections of many of my recent articles. I was surprised to discover several months ago that he was a tonsured monk of the Catholic faith as well as scholar proficient in both Latin and Greek, a man who lived a regimented lifestyle in pursuit of a higher purpose.

It is not a background that is familiar to most of us, certainly not to myself. Having been won over by his sincerity and good humor, I thought we would benefit from hearing him discourse at length on topics of concern for all of us. Hence this interview. Cui’s thoughts are acute, unique in perspective, and unrelentingly positive. In all of my dialogue with him, there was not one word of bile or calumny; on the contrary, I found him to be genuinely modest and self-effacing.

Even if we disagree with his opinions—and some no doubt will–we are all elevated by his example, and his patient devotion to a cause. Although he would gently admonish me for my praise of him, I will yet say it here: the man of virtue emits his own radiance.

Quintus.  Thank you, Cui, for speaking with me today. I am glad you could find the time to do this interview.

C.P.  No, it is my pleasure, Quintus.


Quintus.  I’ll start off with a question that many of our readers may have thought about. Do you believe men are facing a spiritual crisis today? If so, why?

C.P.  Yes. Crisis is a Greek word, meaning “judgment.” It is the nature of Truth, that to come in contact with it is to face judgment; it is therefore no surprise to me, that our judgment rises to the level of a crisis, precisely when “non-judgmentalism” has become our only “truth.” The underlying sickness, is the heresy of “modernism,” (sometimes called “liberalism”), which, boiled down to its very nub, is the irrational assertion of autonomy via absolute, abstract “rights,” while one denies, doubts or despairs of knowing the necessary causes of rights’ existence.

The modernist cares not whether something is Right and True; one only needs the “right” to do something without regard to what is Right and True. The core irrationality is to deny the Right in the name of “rights,” and even to believe that “rights” exist, if there is nothing Right. The modernist society inevitably develops irrationally, in accord with its premises.

Quintus.  This is a good point.

C.P.  But should we therefore deny human rights and impose the pure Right? Pope Pius XII spoke of the balance between stricture and leniency in society. “First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to enjoy free action. Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.” The distinction, philosophically crucial, is that it is often right to tolerate something objectively wrong; but it does not therefore follow that there is a right to do something objectively wrong. To establish the latter idea as a principle, is to plunge society into irrecoverable irrationality and injustice.

Quintus.  But how did things get to the point we are now in society? Who do you think is responsible?

C.P.  Every man is responsible for himself. Assigning responsibility before taking whatever responsibility is due, is shameful in itself. So, that is first. To the extent that we permit, participate in or fail to repent of the crisis, we are partly responsible.


I don’t go in for conspiracy theories as to who the precise instigators of the current events may be, but this is not because I find it unlikely that there are conspiracies and cabals fomenting the destruction of our civilization – I emphatically do. But there is an obvious dearth of information on conspiratorial activity, and many “useful idiots” implement the agenda unwittingly, so expository theories tend to disappoint.

I regard the first Protestants, the Freemasons, Jacobins, all those who advocate for redistribution of economic or social capital (especially socialists and Zionists), and all who defy the principle of “subsidiarity,” to be specially responsible. Those who will drink most deeply from the chalice of God’s wrath, in my personal opinion, are the clergy and religious of the Catholic Church, many of whom, even popes, seem to have completely derelicted their duties.

Quintus.  Yes. There is no doubt that many of our institutions have let us down. Perhaps if these authority figures had been as concerned with the responsibilities of their offices, as they have been with their privileges, then we would not be in this situation. But what things should men be doing now to develop their spiritual sides?

C.P.  First, they should cultivate a love of beauty and excellence. We are immune to heavenly beauties if we cannot even appreciate those of this world. Next, men should learn about the function of the soul in its three aspects, and the relationship of the virtues, especially those called Cardinal Virtues, to them. Finally, men should realize that the spiritual life, properly-so-called, consists of the three Theological Virtues: Faith, Hope and CharityThese are beyond human nature, and so man must ask them from God.

God may test your sincerity and expect you to do some work. Ultimately this will involve spiritual regeneration and a restoration of justice through repentance and union with Christ. If men ask God sincerely, and especially if they commend themselves to Him through the Blessed Virgin, by whom He commended Himself to us, I am sure the spiritual life will open up to them.

Quintus.  What is your background, and what do you do now?

C.P.  Well, I was a professional cellist, and studied music theory and composition. I converted from atheism to Christianity shortly before entering college, and left college in my second year to join an Orthodox monastery, after some reading in history convinced me that the first Christians were not Evangelical Protestants. The monastery felt I had a priestly vocation and sent me back to college. I got two Bachelor’s Degrees, one in Classical Greek and Latin, and another in Medieval and Renaissance Studies.

Learning more about history, and acquiring the ability to read more primary texts in Greek and Latin directly, convicted me of the truth of the Catholic Faith. I’m being received into the Catholic Church now, though I would caution modern men that much of what passes for Catholicism, even in “conservative” circles, is certainly not Catholic. I heartily recommend the SSPX for the Latin Rite; the Eastern Rite is not so damaged at present. I will be withdrawing from my doctoral studies to teach Latin at the seminary, where I will also be trained for the priesthood.

Quintus.  I am glad to know that there are still such men as you, quietly influencing lives. How did you come to make this decision on the direction of your life?

C.P.  I was drawn to the monastic or priestly ideal all my life. But I was an atheist, and then a Protestant! As I considered converting to the Orthodox Church, where monastic life was a possibility, I was in love with a girl. She was the only girl I had ever seriously dated (damaged women are unattractive to me, and modern women are a damaged bunch). Though this girl was not damaged, she still wrote me a powerful prescription for the “red pill.”

This caused me to reflect on the behaviour of women more generally; even the good ones were still beset by that inevitable weakness of their sex. Society once had conventions, which made life with women possible; but since modern society removed these conventions, I saw no need to waste my time. I’ve never regretted this decision.

Quintus.  Yes.

C.P.  For a positive motive, the celibate life has been recommended from the New Testament onwards, as the best form of life. “In the Kingdom of God they are neither married nor given in marriage;” through baptism, “lo, the Kingdom of God is within you.” Thus, to live this life here and now is already eminently suitable for a Christian man.

But what touched me the most, was St. Dorotheos of Gaza’s explanation: when we give God a return on His grace through faith and observance of the commandments, we merely give God His due. If we want to show our gratitude and give something extra, we can voluntarily sacrifice even good things for love of God. To make one’s whole life a sacrifice, is the best possible thing. Quid retribuam Domino, pro omnibus quae retribuit mihi?

Quintus.  Are there any specific spiritual exercises or books that you might recommend?

C.P.  Personalities are too different, the tradition is too rich, and the valid options are too many, to give much in the way of specific recommendations to a large group. I will say what I can, though. First, to heed the Virgin’s instructions at Fatima on the Rosary and other devotions, is the most important spiritual regimen of our age. I recommend meditation as described in The Cloud of Knowing, but mind that book’s warnings.

Observe the full rigour of the medieval fasting rules with the liturgical calendar, to find yourself aligned with a great mystery. Finally, rote prayers are good, since they impart the Church’s piety, but we must also pray freely if we hope to know God and be saved. I will give the advice that consistency in a bit of prayer, is better than failing to regularly pray more (shoot for a daily minimum of 15 minutes, though). Find a time, space and manner of prayer that separates the sacred from the profane…

As to books: the Scriptures go without saying, but read them as the Church reads them. Who cares what you think the Bible means? When Christ said the Holy Spirit “shall lead you into all truth,” it is the plural “you” in the Greek, and He was speaking to the Apostles.

For a crash-course in Christian spirituality, I recommend The Life in Christ by Blessed Columba Marmion, The Spiritual Combat by Lorenzo Scupoli, Christian Mortification by Cardinal Desideratus (Désiré) Mercier, and the regular reading of hagiography, since nothing distills the ethos of Christian spirituality so well as this.

In this latter genre, various works appeal to different backgrounds: my favourite is The Ecclesiastical History of the English People by the Venerable Bede (you may want to skip the first chapters), but there are many other choices. The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith distills the patristic mind; The Catechism of the Council of Trent does, too, as refined and enriched by Thomism. The Conferences and Institutes of St. John Cassian give advanced spiritual instruction. But I could spend an afternoon recommending various books for various needs, so let’s leave it at that.


Quintus.  I have to ask this. What is your daily regimen like?

C.P.  When everything goes well, it is like this:

6:00 – Rise, morning prayers, Prime, Terce. 7:00 – Exercise, shower; 8:00 Tea/Coffee, Study and Intellectual Work; 10:00 – Light breakfast, free time to read news, blogs; 11:30 – Sext, None, Manual Labor; 1:30 – Freshen up, mental prayer, spiritual reading; 2:00 – Lunch, Productive Time ad libitum; 5:00 – Clean and straighten up room or work areas if needed; Walk with Rosary, Vespers; 6:00 – Cook Dinner, Eat, Clean; 8:00 – Compline, Matins, Prayer ad libitum; when Matins is done, if so desired, tipple some vespertinal spirits, listen to music, read for pleasure, wind down for sleep by 10:00-ish

Quintus.  What are the big mistakes that you see young men making today? How can they correct these things?

C.P.  The main ones are those outlined above, of modernism and liberalism – that sense of entitlement to pursue life on one’s own terms, rather than realizing that nature and reason have dictated their own terms to us, and wisdom lies not in resisting reality, but in harmonizing with it.

Past this, I would say that cynicism is a problem, especially when joined to hedonism. Man was created to have pleasure in serving the Good faithfully. To cynically serve nihilism, especially in hedonism, is the exact opposite of our natural state and purpose. It is no coincidence that this state is the natural consequence of Modernism and Liberalism.

I know that our times are bleak, and that dysfunction and societal breakdown are everywhere accelerating. I know that our fathers, physical and spiritual, have left us rootless as never before. I know that there is no longer any beauty, comfort or fidelity in our women, and that the simple pleasures of starting a family are overshadowed by perpetual wage slavery and divorce slavery. I know it often seems that there is nothing of enduring value to be acquired and preserved, and that the pleasure of the moment seems like the best we will get. This is all an illusion. Clean the garbage from your mind and reject the slow-acting poison that has been poured into your veins by every apparatus of the Modernist culture.

While it is true that present circumstances may limit our options, we see that every treasure of moral and spiritual excellence is yours to enjoy, and no power outside yourself can alienate it from you without your consent. So that is my advice to men on how to correct it. Refuse it your consent. Repent of the bad, adhere to the Good as to your very life. In a world without honor or integrity, consider your own honor and integrity all the more priceless. Struggle not to be corrupted. Those in this age who do so, I am sure, will receive from God a recompense proportionate to their struggle. The afterlife aside, a virtuous man lives the better life even here and now.

Quintus.  These are noble words. It feeds my vexation not to be able to enjoy the benefits of your counsel, and I hope you will return to us again soon. I will say no more, except that few take more pleasure in your words than I. Thank you most sincerely.

C.P.  No, such words are not necessary, Quintus.

Read More:  The Life Of A Location Independent Traveler

263 thoughts on “A Dialogue With A Pious Monk”

  1. Fantastic piece! I am a pagan, but I think this interview contained more wisdom than just about any book I’ve read in the last year!
    The true alpha is the wise man, the warrior, and the artist, not Don Juan.

    1. By being the wise man, the warrior and the artist, you will always attract women amidst your path

  2. Very good interview
    I always thought Cui P was a jesuit (not as in jesuitical … but because of the way he argued I might add)

    1. I’ll take it as a compliment, even though Jesuits tend to be bad company these days! 🙂

      1. I didn’t know that. I’ve been warned! I do recall my history teacher telling us that the jesuits were the ‘shocktroops of the church’. I think in the context (the counter-reformation) it meant they were educated to engage in intellectual and spiritual battle – so I think you can take that as a compliment

        1. Yes, the Jesuits were once the glory of the Church. St. Ignatius of Loyola was a giant, and men like St. Francis Xavier got into boats and headed off to places like China and Japan despite not knowing the language and having no contacts there. He presided over the foundation of Japanese Catholicism, recognizing that Japan, unlike the indigenous cultures of Africa and the Americas, was a very advanced society and would not simply adopt the Roman culture as its own. He thus studied their philosophy and made a careful attempt to discover how to accurately express Catholicism in the terms their culture’s philosophy had already developed. After spending time in the Orthodox Church, where it’s Hellenism or the highway for everyone on earth, I was stunned by the magnanimity and intellectual rigour – not to mention the bravery and commitment – of this approach. Astounding!
          Contrarily, the most famous Jesuits of the past century have been: Teilhard de Chardin, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Karl Rahner and Pope Francis…

        2. “men like St. Francis Xavier got into boats and headed off to places like China and Japan despite not knowing the language and having no contacts there.”
          that does come across as extraordinarily brave. I think some of them met with persecution though.
          I’m very interested in the work of Teilhard de Chardin, although I mostly know of this through secondary sources. I think his Omega point remains controversial but enticing

        3. Yeah, I’m not a fan of the new Jesuits! The Omega Point, to me, is a denial of everything the Church teaches, and also fails to account for observable facts about both cultural and biological development. One of the things that most interested me when I studied languages, was to see how languages were far more complex and subtle 2000 or 3000 years ago, and have continually decayed. Genetic information also shows signs of decay over time. The idea that things are always evolving into something better seems to me to be the exact opposite of the truth.

        4. i’ve been meaning to read his work properly. I have the phenomenon of man on my kindle – so I will reserve judgement until I’ve done so, but I actually like some of what I’ve heard even if I can appreciate that their are some troubling aspects. I’ve always been quite taken by some of the ideas to do with the ‘evolution’ towards complexity, the omega point, or Kurzweil’s more secular singularity etc., but there are clearly some collectivist implications which one must approach carefully.

        5. Indeed. And, of course, few things are entirely bad. I’m sure Teilhard (and the rest) do have good things to say, as well. I’m not a fan of Francis, overall, but many of his sermons are quite good and practical. You’ve got to mine the good wherever you find it, but you’ve also got to be sure you develop a taste for the good, lest you accept things indiscriminately.

        6. yes, its an important to develop a discerning palate. Teilhard isn’t the most accessible writer though, which makes it a bit harder to judge

  3. For years, I was trying to rid myself of my principles, before discovering the red pill. I thought that my values had to be false and that if I corrupted them just enough, I would have access to the pleasures of society. But the more I deconstructed society in my mind to set myself above the rules, the more I realized that these pleasures are elusive and of short lived nature. They depend on the illusion. Knowing comes with the burden of responsibility. The red pill puts the prize within your reach, but you have to awaken to reality to get there, which renders the prize worthless.
    I see the red pill principles and mindset as it was described in the early days: Giving up illusion and living the fullest, richest life possible, with the burden of knowing the truth. If you add the depth of some form of spirituality to this, you start to get more than a man who “surfs” society during its degradation process. You get a man who knows better, and who can objectively look at the decay, participating only as he sees enjoyable. Knowing, disagreeing, but not completely turning your back. It’s probably the only way for most young men in western societies.
    This article show us, that there are still men of pure principle out there. And that even if we participate in these games, we should never let our own principles get fully corrupted.

    1. “The red pill puts the prize within your reach, but you have to awaken to reality to get there, which renders the prize worthless.”
      You have good wisdom my friend.

      1. this is what all the players subconsciously discover…. master the skills and the pussy becomes worthless and tasteless….
        I like this one best, I’ve wrestled with the problem for ages, but perhaps he is right…..
        “Society once had conventions, which made life with women possible; but since modern society removed these conventions, I saw no need to waste my time. I’ve never regretted this decision.”

        1. I was also conflicted about this for a long time. The idea that we should free ourselves of every convention and moral boundary to get access to all kinds of pleasures comes at a very high cost, something most people don’t realize. If you want endless freedom you lose loyalty, stability and security. If you make it normal to cheat and branch swing and screw people over that are close and meaningful to you, what have you truly gained? Short lived pleasures cannot replace the substance that holds a society together.
          Yes it’s our nature to long for pleasures, but is it right to submit to every impulse at this high cost? We don’t need laws to handcuff us to behaviors, but we need to learn spiritual awakening, responsibility, respect and love so we can CHOOSE to live by these principles.
          Men, but more so women and children, need guidelines by which to live because they have very bad moral judgement. If you let a child grow without educating it, without shaping the way it sees the world, it will become nothing but an ape, simply due to its nature (science has actually tried this). As astounding as it may seem to some, this is also true for women.

        2. I saw my brother learn the same lesson; he was always much more of a lady killer than I was. When he was in the Navy (Nuclear Operations on a sub), all the guys would get him to chat up the girls and get them back up to the hotel room on shore leave… and they always teased him for being “gay,” since he never wanted to partake. But he had merely lost all respect or desire for the easy prey.

        3. That’s not what we’re saying. Every man has the right to love a pretty face and a curvy waist. But that has nothing to do with how society now accepts and promotes women to behave like entitled hypergamous whores.

    2. It is the faith in society that keeps us engaged in society, despite its disgusting nature and cruelty. The fight is indeed worth having and is its own reward.

  4. I have a couple of questions for Cui, if I may. I found it interesting to read this interview.
    1) If possible, I would find it very helpful if you could please elaborate on this point:
    “As to books: the Scriptures go without saying, but read them as the Church reads them. Who cares what you think the Bible means?”
    How does the Church read the scriptures? Is there a resource that can help with this?
    2) I actually wanted to be a priest (Catholic) when I was around 14-16 years old, then I moved overseas for high school to an atheist country, lost my virginity, and quickly became of the opinion that Christianity was a huge load of crap, perhaps one of the greatest evils to ever haunt the earth. I do not write this to belittle you, rather I am genuinely curious to hear your side as you are going through with becoming a priest whereas I turned my back on Christianity about 15 years ago. How can a seemingly intelligent man (such as yourself) believe that God created a system whereby he had to send his son in the form of a man to die on the cross to forgive us for our sins. If God is the omnipotent God, he can do whatever he wants…that means he can make us free of sin…and why on earth would he create a system that forces him to take the body of a man and kill himself for us. It seems to be absolute nonsense to me at best, and as I came of age and moved away from my hometown, I quickly came to this conclusion. Cui, if you have the time and or inclination, I would greatly appreciate a reply to my questions.
    Respectfully yours,

    1. perhaps CP will answer your question, but I think his words about sacrifice as the highest purpose of life might give a clue to the answer.
      Its a good question though, so any pat answers aren’t appropriate but I think it is precisely that question that might lead to a quest for the spiritual life rather than preclude it

    2. BK, I had many questions like that once upon a time before I was a Christian. In the end, I came to realize that it is truly absurd that a Creator made us perfect, that we sinned according to how He made us, that we were cursed by Him and then needed a savior to eventually get us back to where we belonged: Walking in the Garden with God here or in forever.
      It is truly absurd. But have you thoroughly studied nature? Have you studied physics? Math? Logic? Philosophy? If you have, as I have, you may come to the same conclusions: It’s all absurd! All tautologies. Paradoxes and contradictions abound. Light has “dual properties”? LOL, that is a contradiction and a paradox. Infinite mass can be contained in zero space? Absurd. The mind is nothing more than matter? Absurd. The laws of the cosmos are fixed? Absurd. Math is invalid because the number 1 exists nowhere in nature- math is just an illusion or a delusion existing only in our head. Everything came out of nowhere for no reason? Absurd.
      Once you’ve been humbled by the absurdity of your own mind and body, you may be open to Truth. The Truth is that we are all living in a dream of sorts. The Truth is that we are living in God’s dream. He spoke it into existence, created it from nothing as far as we’re concerned, for his own pleasure, and gave you not the ability to answer many riddles, as “His ways are above ours.” (Isaiah 55)
      Within the frame of being God’s dream and His creation, life becomes very real, with real consequences, and real laws- as far as you are concerned. Outside of that frame, everything is absurd, including your petty little questions like “Who created God” and “Why doesn’t God just put us in heaven right now?”
      You are still a wayward theist asking questions of a God who is according to you: possibly there. You are still starting with God and then working back toward yourself with those questions. You are not a true atheist yet. If you were a true atheist you would start from the non-theist viewpoint and ask very different questions that don’t presume the reality of a Creator and whether or not He is just and fair. A true atheist starts with the only god he knows: himself, and asks himself whether he is just, fair, and whether his self truly exists and has meaning. The true atheist is skeptical of himself first, and poses those same irreverent questions to himself as he would to a God. So if you are not truly an atheist, why don’t you admit you are a theist and you are just mad at God for not answering your questions and behaving the way you would like him to behave? Are you just a typical wayward rebellious foolish son? I don’t know.
      Without God and his framework making your mind and body a real concern, your questions are nothing but a noise in the cosmos, and your life is nothing but an atomic cloud of dust. The truly intellectual resolution for an atheist would therefore be to test your theory of atheism and just kill yourself. There is nothing to lose because everything is already nothing— and there is everything to gain because the next life, if there is one after suicide, must be exactly equal to or greater than the current life, which is currently zero. Life is currently absurd so why not put an end to it?
      Jesus Christ said that you need to die. Put yourself to death and be born again in The Spirit (John 3, 12; Luke 9). Many asked what they must do to be born again, and he gave differing answers. One was asked to sell all his treasures, and he departed. Others were asked to stop being religious hypocrites. Others would not humble themselves. Jesus agrees: Kill yourself. fortunately for you, you can be born again, and suffer only one brief death to come, instead of an eternal death.
      It seems he asked me to submit my will and my questions and demands of Him. So I threw in the towel and The Spirit fell upon me. It seems my wife simply always believed and only had to admit that she intuitively knew it was all real and stop trying to impress the world. Our paths were different, but you should seek (Mat 7:7), and you should hear the Gospel (Rom 10:17), and you should pray and humble yourself (James 4). That is what you can do.
      May God save you.

      1. Thank you for the seemingly sincere reply….but you are crazy. If you actually believe the shit you have written then you are a complete nutjob who needs professional help.
        To address the first paragraph of your reply, if God can do whatever the fuck he wants, we wouldn’t need a saviour. The whole thing is ridiculous, and just because there are absurd or unexplainable phenomena in nature, does not somehow lend any credibility to christianity. the burden of proof is on you to explain how chrsitianity is truth…if I made up some silly religion tomorrow, the burden of proof would be on my to prove it is true, nothing more.
        the truth is we are living in god’s dream? really? which fucking god? buddha, alah, jesus? give me a break.
        and quoting the bible? a book that is supposedly god’s word, but actually is nothing more than different stories changed over the years to control the hearts and minds of the people. how can you think for even a second that it is really god that wrote that book? you are a fucking idiot for believing any of it.
        I think there is likely much more to our existence than we are aware, but christianity is certainly not the answer….why not islam? hahaha
        I liked how you tried to establish the frame of being an authority by listing examples of seemingly absurd phenomena, but it has nothing to do with believing some J guy is god who died for our sins because it was written in a book that is 2,000 years old. if it is old it must be true! hahahahaha
        the catholic church is one of the most evil organizations ever. the world would be soooo much better if it was rid of all christians, muslims and the rest. God forbid we treat each other with kindness and decency because it is the right thing to do, as opposed to being good for the fear of hell.
        Thank you again for the reply, but unfortunately you are actually stupid for believing in christianity.
        I was interested in Cui’s response because he went through with becoming a priest (well, he currently is in the process I gather), and after I left my home and went to live in a country of atheists, I finally realized how absurd the whole concept of believing a guy died and came back to life to save me…..insanity of the highest order!

        1. Jesus was described as being killed, buried, and resurrected. His body was described as having vanished. His body has not been found. This is evidence. There is a lot of additional evidence. Issuing all this evidence is meeting the burden of proof. Yet I am accused of not meeting the burden of proof simply because you, BK, against all the billions of people who are satisfied with this evidence, do not constitute it as proof.
          Whether this piece of evidence, and the others along with it constitute “proof” is up to the judge. I suppose you are smarter than 99.9% of humans that have ever existed and have believed in the supernatural? Or are you just morally superior to all other humans?
          I am crazy? I am very sane. I am doing well. You abuse hyperbole to the point of intellectual dishonesty.

        2. dude, you are an idiot for believing this shit….jesus’ body hasn’t been found and that is proof? the much more likely theory is that it decomposed… there are billions of people satisfied with this evidence? billions of stupid poor people who have been brainwashed from a young age perhaps…

        3. I am probably smarter than you, probably more educated, probably have more life experiences and wisdom, probably have more responsibility, was raised in a secular home, and once said almost everything you are saying right now when I was young and ignorant, and you call me an idiot.
          Do you have a beard under your neck, and wear a fedora by chance? Just a thing I’ve noticed. I’m gathering data on it. Please respond.

        4. I don’t think Jesus ever existed myself.
          But the secular modernist has equally unsubstantiated claims about his own worldview (which he enforces at gunpoint through the education system).

        5. Not that this is an argument, but you are in an intellectual minority my friend, even among seculars. There are very few secularists that would even claim Jesus never existed.

        6. I am aware of Christian apologetics (claims proving that he had to have existed… Josephus mentions him, passion of early christians, the idea that if the story was false it could have been falsified by witnesses), but the opinion that makes most sense to me is that Paul of Tarsus either contrived the story or elaborated.
          Regardless, there is no hard case (in terms of motive) to disprove his existence, other than political motives (certain wealthy Jewish Romans tried to create a new, subversive, political cult).
          The passion of the early disciples is a good argument for your POV.

        7. Judging by your posts you think you are smarter, but you actually sound like an idiot and your arguments are hollow and have not answered my questions with any degree of satisfaction.
          Seriously…god gave you a sex drive (haha I am assuming when I say you) but it is a sin to indulge in it unless you are married? Masturbation is a mortal sin, did you know that? So basically every teenager who whacks off will go to hell for all eternity unless they go to confession.
          I have no idea your level of education (I just did my 4 year BA but it turned into 6 years because I took a year off for a Japanese scholarship thingamabobby and then dropped out to go to China for a year before going back to finish up with that racket called higher education) but there are a lot of stupid fucks in higher education. There are loads of people in higher education who actually believe that blacks are as intelligent as Chinese or Japanese. That is some seriously hilarious shit. If I got my PHD in women’s studies that may or may not put me in the category of being more educated than you, but I would have to be a stupid fucking useless idiot to study women’s studies in the first place…
          You are probably an over-educated idiot who lacks the ability to think freely. I would be shocked if you were smarter than me.
          Depending on your age you may or may not have more life experience, but frankly there are few people in my age group that I have met who have more, and if you really did have more than me you wouldn’t believe in this christian garbage.
          You probably do have more responsibility than me….certainly right on that one. I quit my job to day trade full time (I was a trader before) for myself and just bum around the world. Why would I want more responsibility than studying foreign languages while waiting for a good trade to appear, playing guitar all day long, chasing pussy nonstop, and enjoying new exciting places whenever I feel like it? However, if you have less responsibility than me I would love to hear all about it, because that would truly be impressive!
          Why Christianity as opposed to the countless other belief systems out there?

        8. Then there will be bones. The body is gone but the bones are not. Plus if he didn’t rise from the dead the religious leaders only need produce his body to disprove the resurrection. Likewise Romans posted a guard in the tomb to prevent the body from being stolen.

        9. One could set all of this aside and simply compare the cultures and social structures of Catholic countries when Catholicism was the dominant religion with the cultural, social, moral, and economic wastelands they have become in the modern, post-Christian world. I’ll take the former over the latter any time.
          Why Christianity rather than the others? On a simple level, it’s because Christianity is the religious expression of our thede (what’s left of Western civilization). I’m not a wog and therefore have no interest in adopting wog religion or culture. Nevertheless, Carl Jung made some very astute points about why, psychologically, Christian concepts of God are superior to others. See, for example, “Christ, a Symbol of the Self.”

    3. My two cents: It’s actually a matter of free will.
      God actually prefers to create morally free beings who are capable to choose to love Him. He doesn’t want little robots who will forcefully follow His Law. But in order to be able to be free to love Him, one must also have the liberty to sin against Him. And that’s the choice human race did once. So God gave us one more chance (our case was not as bad as the angels’ who had a way more complete revelation of God’s character and yet rebelled against Him), but in order to do that, He had to die… and there it go… It doesn’t give all the answers, but it’s the best explanation I have. I highly recomend reading “The Great Controversy” and “History of Redemption” by Ellen G. White, it gives good insights on the origin of evil, and all of that.
      I hope this have helped!

      1. So god gave me this strong urge in my penis that prevents me from focusing or being able to study if I don’t unload the sticky goo from my balls, but the act of unloading it is a sin unless I am married and have sex only with the cunt I am married to???
        So basically god set us all up for failure. sounds like a real fucking asshole to me.
        Sorry, but you are wayyyy off base. I hope my above scenario helps you realize just how absurd christianity is.
        Good luck freeing your mind!

        1. but seriously, why would god give me a strong urge to do something that is sinful outside of marriage?…as if that is practical in today’s world…. that is like giving man hunger and telling him it is a sin to eat…
          fucking ridiculous and if you actually believe this christian shit you are stupid and I am superior to you.
          oh yea, one last question, why christianity and not islam?
          hope you picked the right one! would suck to get it wrong and spend eternity in hell…

        2. The questions you ask are all good ones. The Christian religion is corrupted beyond redemption. The fact that most Christians believe in the trinity is testament to this (which has no biblical basis whatsoever).
          Jesus (Yeshua, even his name is wrong) was the messiah that was foretold of in the Torah, but the whole story of the cross and all of that is nonsense. Idolatry, nothing more. Study what Yeshua taught, not that false prophet Paul.
          Everything we do is based on egoism, which is by God’s design. Only God can help us to overcome egoism. Truly ask yourself, why do you do anything? Who does your action benefit? If you are honest, the answer will always be for yourself. Neither current Christianity or Islam addresses this.
          Also, there is nothing sinful about sleeping with another woman outside of marriage unless she is another man’s wife. Women were thought of as property in the bible. If a man slept with another man’s wife it was like stealing. No such commandment forbids men from sleeping with other unmarried women, even while the man is married. You think a woman had a say in who her husband slept with? LOL
          Why do you guys believe the feminist interpretation of the bible? Study it yourself.

        3. Its not stupid to believe in a higher power, humans since time began have been seeking to answer that question (after the separation and flood) As for being superior to one who believes…that’s just bullshit. when you refuse to believe something that limits you. I confess to not knowing everything or believing in God at times, but it doesn’t mean I’m not open to the possibility of being proved wrong, therefore my mind is open and receptive to learn new things while yours is closed and unwilling to be receptive ergo it inferior to mine and others who have open minds.
          “why would god give me a strong urge to do something that is sinful outside of marriage?”- self-discipline. It has to do with mastering our animal natures. It has to do with the fact that we are capable of reasoning and the only creature on the earth to overcome our base instincts.
          As for picking the right one, with the flow of information the way it is, its never been easier to have access to the word and decide for yourself.The people before, didn’t have all the facts or have access to the word, so they are the ones judged by there works alone…so I hope they lived good lives, but us who had the knowledge and choose to ignore it are damned because God gave us an easy A so to speak and lots of people are still saying “Fuck you God”.

        4. Refusing to believe something limits you? Spoken like a true fool who has sunk the religious bullshit hook line and sinker. If I made up a religion today that said my parrot was God and that you must worship him or go to hell for eternity and made up a bunch of silly rules of what you can and cannot do, you would be stupid for not calling it stupid. Just because something is 2,000 years old but equally absurd as my parrot example does not lend it any credibility.

        5. I am pretty sure the bible is pretty clear that sex outside of wedlock is a sin. Although I haven’t been reading my bible lately!!! Why does the Catholic church consider masturbation a mortal sin in which the masturbator will go to hell for ETERNITY unless they repent in confession. hahahahha just typing this shit makes me laugh because anyone who believes it is a fucking idiot hahhahaaha

        6. No, concupiscence was something Adam chose for himself, and this inevitably altered his nature. We have inherited this nature from him. God did not give us the concupiscence; but, seeing us ravaged by it, He has made it possible for concupiscence to actually accrue to our greater glory. Adversity can make things stronger, and concupiscence is a great adversity. The man who conquers it is greater than a man who conquers the world. Your concupiscence is never stronger than your ability to control it; if you feel that you are incapable of doing anything because of the urges you feel, I would say that you need to work on developing a greater fortitude and manliness of spirit. Your penis is not the boss of you; you are the boss of it. Embrace the conflict; it is a proving ground. Your argument is essentially the argument of the homosexual: because I feel an urge, I am justified in acting upon it in any way I see fit. That is not the path of wisdom.

        7. “but seriously, why would god give me a strong urge to do something that is sinful outside of marriage?…as if that is practical in today’s world…. that is like giving man hunger and telling him it is a sin to eat”
          This ^^^^^^^
          Good question — we as a biological creature have desires and needs, including need for sex, yet we do get shamed for wanting this need fulfilled.

        8. I know it’s not the Bible, but what about the Commandment:
          Thou Shall Not Commit Adultery?

    4. BK, it is great to read your honest question(s).
      As to the first, the Church has always insisted that the Scriptures must be read according to the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers of the Church. Because we have ready-made Bibles nowadays, it is very easy for people to buy into the Protestant notion that everyone should just sit down with whatever devotional Bible is currently hip and popular, and have a chat over coffee with the big JC. Most people fail to notice that 1) the Church was around for decades before the New Testament was even completed; 2) the Church had spread to reach Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Ireland, Morocco and Somalia before there was agreement on what belonged in the Bible; 3) both before, and for a LONG time after the canon was defined, it was so costly and difficult to make copies of scripture, that many parishes did not even have a complete copy (they only had the lectionary); 4) unlike the Old Testament, the books recognized as Apostolic do not give detailed information on every aspect of life; they are simply the collected, surviving writings that were known to be of apostolic origin (whether of the Twelve or of the Seventy).
      The Church simply never had the idea that the complete, final authority on everything was “the Bible,” because a) they didn’t know what “the Bible” was, and b) almost nobody had a “Bible” on hand. Rather, as the New Testament itself teaches, they believed that “the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth.” The Church told us what belongs in the Bible; it is the Church that establishes the authority of the Bible, and not vice-versa. The Christian Faith has always been about incorporation into Christ’s Body, ruled by the Apostles and their successors; Christianity is the Church. The idea that it is a philosophy to be lived, based upon one’s private opinions about statements read in translation from an ancient collection of writings, is a very late, very humanistic, very gnostic idea.
      Individual people are fallible; but taken together the more or less unanimous opinion of the Fathers is a rule of faith for the Church in interpreting what Scripture means, because it is a record of what all Christians believed about the Scriptures in the first centuries. No Christians of the first centuries interpreted the Bible as Protestants do, but all the Fathers interpreted it, with room for a stray opinion here and there, as Catholics still do. This should tell us something. Beyond this, the Church is always the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, and this means that her continuing judgments, pronouncements and development of the principles of thought from the Apostolic and Patristic eras, are authoritative even now.
      So, the best way to go about reading the Bible as the Church does, is to read homilies by Church Fathers, or their written commentaries. Even in works that are not direct commentaries on Scripture, the Fathers were constantly quoting it, making the general study of the Fathers a good idea. The popes have also written some good encyclicals on Scripture, such as Divino Afflante Spiritu (Pius XII) Spiritus Paraclitus (Benedict XV) and Providentissimus Deus (Leo XIII). The commentaries of Blessed Theophylact carry great weight on the Gospels, as does the Catena Aurea compiled by St. Thomas Aquinas; there is a great, four-volume set called “The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers” (by Fr. Toal); there are commentaries on the Pauline epistles by St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine, the latter of whom also wrote commentaries on the Psalms. Reading the Fathers and the papal encyclicals on Scripture will help one to read as the Church reads.
      As to your loss of faith…
      I speak not in judgment here, for I was long an atheist and am still a sinner, but the Church herself teaches that the supernatural virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity are driven from us by deliberate, mortal sin. These virtues are beyond the power of man, and can only be had by asking them of God and striving to remain faithful to them when we have them. It does not surprise me that you would find Faith, Hope and Charity failing, precisely as you began to embrace sin (charity is a self-sacrificing love, that enables us to prefer God and our neighbour’s good rather than our own sins and desires). I would also venture to point out, that despite the modern world’s advancement in technology, we live in a world where Feminists, LGBTQ folk, SJWs and Socialists are taken seriously despite their obvious disconnect from reality; many even of our scientific truths are total bunk, but the high priesthood of “science” intimidates people away from questioning them more openly. In other words, we live in a world flush with gadgets and academic papers, but parched for wisdom. In my opinion, most people who lose and reject their faith are not doing so after a profound study of the Church’s authentic teachings, nor after carefully engaging in critical though towards the scientific, academic and cultural establishment of modernity, but are simply giving in to the vanity of Modernity and then justifying the capitulation ex post facto.
      The only way to recover such things is repentance; we must admit, first to ourselves, that we can and may be mistaken; we can then go to God. I will tell you what I believe, having been an atheist for almost a decade: I believe that every man has a direct experience of God’s existence; I believe that even atheists, as I was, are constantly pitting an abstracted compartment of their intellect, which seems more “rational” because it is concerned with material observations, against a profound but undeniable, interior intuition that God does, indeed, exist. I think most atheists, as I did, take a certain pride in being “realists,” “brave” people who can confront the stark reality without needing the “crutch” of religious belief. But I think that, like me, if they would but silence the din of their reasonings for a moment and permit themselves to listen to that core of their innermost self, they would find there the genuine conviction that God does exist, though they may not know how or why. Every time I have gone to the core of myself, and find the presence of God there, wordlessly leaving no choice to the honest soul. I think one also has the conviction that God wills our supreme good, but that, precisely for that reason, in facing God one realizes that he has been brought to the choice, the only choice, upon which all our hope and all our danger depends.
      One must be a man, if he is to face this. But if you can face this interior encounter with God in the nakedness of your soul and honestly tell Him that, though you do not yet understand the first thing about Him or His demands, you nevertheless are prepared to submit to Him, trusting that He does mean you good even when you don’t understand it, and are therefore willing to learn (rather than eager to complain and accuse), you will be prepared to recover Faith. Faith does not mean “blind obedience,” but rather, is a trust rooted in the knowledge that the immensity of this Being must logically transcend merely human perception, and therefore the trustworthiness that is perceived in advance can be trusted to gradually unfold itself to our rational understanding in particular matters over time, in an unfolding that can never be completed. Even in heaven, the saints enjoy the Beatific Vision of God’s very Essence – but, though they perceive the Essence as it is, the Essence is infinite and permits of an eternity of deepening understanding, so that the Saints contemplate for all eternity but never cease rejoicing in the constant renewal of the newness of the Godhead. Even so, now, we perceive the immensity of God’s Truth and Being, but we know that we are ignorant about particulars. Faith is the trust that this Truth, if unclear and poorly known now, will continue to become clearer and better known. It is not blind; it is rooted in the reasonability of the first act of belief, which trusts that nothing will emerge which is contrary to reason, and therefore lets Faith seek understanding with reason.
      Your main confusion as to God’s creation and the existence of evil, is the belief that God’s omnipotence means that “God can do whatever He wants,” and involves the consequent assumption, from analogy to human experience, that God has a deliberative will and could just as easily want one thing as another. God is perfect; it would not be power, but weakness, to will anything of poor quality. The oft-heard, silly question, “Can God make a stone so heavy that even He can’t lift it?” betrays this misunderstanding. God actually cannot will something contradictory or imperfect (like creating things “too heavy” for Himself). Likewise, God could not will to create beings that would choose to commune with Him, if there was no choice. While it is true that a being can come to be perfected in its choice to commune with God (or not), as has already happened with the angels (and demons), and with the saints (and the damned), it would not be proper and right to create a “free” being that had never been given the choice. Thus, it was not possible for God to create a universe that lacked the necessary good of communion with other beings, that compelled these beings to accept the gift or act in a certain way, etc. Though there are risks in granting the freedom to accept unspeakable largesse, or to render one’s self contemptibly evil and reprobate by trampling it underfoot, this way of proceeding has seemed better to God than the alternatives. Though God is entirely free from any external constraint upon His action, and He is entirely free to act as He wills, He is what He is, and He acts and wills perfectly. He has judged that the good of free beings who choose to commune with Him, is better than the alternative; and as Aquinas says, “good is diffusive of itself,” i.e., good is not selfish, but wishes to be extended as broadly as possible, and so God would not have willed to simply keep to Himself for all eternity. I do not find it difficult to see the wisdom in His course of action, even with the risks, even if it meant that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity had to come and participate in our suffering to restore union with Himself. In fact, I see this as one of the great signs of God’s goodness and perfections, that He Himself would bear the weight of the risk and take its pain upon Himself, demonstrating that His desire for fellowship with man was something so important that it merited the unthinkable: that the Infinite should become Finite, the Impassible should suffer the cruelest Passion; the source of Life should taste of death; the Punisher of Evil should Himself suffer, innocently, the Punishment. In this way God has stopped the mouths of any who would speak against Him: for, as Christ sings from the Cross in the rites of Good Friday, “Popule meus… quid ultra debui facere tibi, et non feci? (O, my people, what more ought I to have done for you, which I did not do?). If it was better that creation be free, and if it was inevitable that an errant creation must suffer loss and separation by the very fact of erring, what more could God do, than pursue the errant creature all the way into his suffering, so as to restore the unity He so desires? Who can criticize the Punisher, when He shows Himself willing to become one of us, the punished? Indeed, does He not show Himself to be more Nourisher than Punisher? Yet what if a creature will not be nourished?
      This brings me to the last point: the illusion that God may be cruel, on account of the punishment of the damned, is easily resolved if one considers, philosophically, what it means to reject the ground of all existence, using the gift of one’s existence to do so. God does not send man to Hell, though we speak of Him as “growing angry,” “being appeased,” “sending” to Hell, “rewarding” the righteous, etc., as though He were changeable, simply because these expressions are the best we have; in reality, the man who has accustomed himself to doing such a thing (using his existence to choose what is contrary to existence and the Source thereof) will lament and say “myself am Hell” when He is confronted with the permanent reality of his choice. God has not hurled him to hell; by rejecting God, a man rejects himself, rejects all that Is, and so becomes hell. May God assist us and save us from such a fate, at the intercession of the Blessed Mother of God, the Matrix by Whom the Immaterial was made Matter, and of all the Saints.
      I hope some of that helped, and I apologize for writing at such length.

      1. Cui,
        My sincerest thanks to you for taking the time to write a reply to my questions. I am tired after a day of work (and just finished a bottle of red wine) so I will refrain from any follow up at this present time other than a sincere Thank You! I will reread your reply later this evening and tomorrow morning (when my head is always most clear) and meditate on it.
        Just to add: I certainly believe in a higher power, I have just come to the conclusion that it is beyond my comprehension and that I should strive to never lie and treat others as I want to be treated. Thank you again Cui!

        1. Well, thanks be to God! I would say that you have made a good start with your beliefs and principles, and may well be a better man than I for it. I’m about to start on a bottle of red myself, so I’ll drink a glass for you.

      2. CP, I really appreciate your contribution. You have added a some real quality to the discourse here.
        I have a couple of questions for you (if you have the time to reply)
        1. In addition to the reading you have mentioned above, what would you suggest for someone like me who is a die hard Confessional Lutheran? At this point I will die a Lutheran and be buried in Lutheran dirt, but if I could be persuaded to swim the Tiber, it is by discussion like yours. I am sick to death of crappy ‘internet theology’ and do most of my spiritual reading in the Scriptures, Lutheran Confessions, and theology books written in the last 500 years. (NOTE: l am in no way Reformed or Calvinist. Lutheran theology is on an entirely different trajectory than Calvinism/Reformed and Wesleyan theology.)
        2. If I was to investigate Catholic theology, I despair at the sheer volume of literature. This is compounded by the fact that it is plain to see that the present day RCC has been corrupted by modernity, at least since Vatican II and probably a good while before. That said, where can I find ‘orthodox’ materials to read about real Catholicism?
        Any suggestions are greatly appreciated. I look forward to seeing more of your writing here.
        PS. Do you have a blog, or any you recommend?

        1. Mr. Kyle, I’m sorry to have missed your post, here. There are a couple longer posts, of which my “notifications” have not notified me!
          Well, I was an Atheist, then a Protestant, then Orthodox, and have come home to Catholicism. Many might think of this as “jumping around,” but to me it’s a very straight line from “nothing,” deeper into the heart of the Truth – first through Christianity in general, then through a reverence for the customs and doctrine of Christian antiquity, and finally into the heart of authority and sound doctrine in the Church. I certainly think there are ample reasons to swim the Tiber, though I would agree with you that much of what appears to be Catholicism, in the institutions of Catholicism, is no longer the Catholic Faith. It has always been believed in the Church, that culpable heresy immediately and automatically severs a man from unity with Christ. When one examines the writings, speech, thought, etc., of most Catholic prelates and priests from the past century, he finds that there is a great apostasy occurring, and that many of the men who attended the Second Vatican Council had in fact already ceased to be members of the Church’s Magisterium. Certainly since the Council, the crisis of apostasy has become increasingly manifest. Not to get too “supernatural,” here, but all the Marian apparitions of the past 300 years have warned gravely about precisely this situation: Rome seeming to lose the faith and the onset of the Great Apostasy, which would start “at the top.” The Scriptures told us the day would come, too, so this should be no surprise. In my personal opinion, the last actual pope was either Pius XII or (possibly) John XXIII; from Paul VI on, there are grave reasons to doubt the validity of every single pope. So, in swimming the Tiber, I hope you’ll understand that you don’t have to become a gay socialist, as one could certainly be forgiven for thinking at present.
          I don’t know what the main difficulties of a traditional Lutheran may be. I was an Evangelical Protestant, and don’t know much about the development of Lutheranism over the centuries. But “Sola Scriptura” and “Sola Fide” are both lynchpins of Luther’s thought, as I understand it (which may, admittedly, be quite wrong). I would point out something that embarrassed me, as a Protestant, when I allowed myself to actually face the reality of it: it is clear that Scripture itself, while commending the goodness of Scripture, and commending the Jews of Berea for verifying that the Apostles were not lying in their assertions about Scripture, really does not teach anywhere that Scripture is the sole rule of faith. In fact, it doesn’t even make sense to believe that Christians accepted such a premise, since they carried on all the business of the Church for four centuries, while either a) parts of Scripture had not been written yet, or b) there was no agreement as to what was and wasn’t Scripture, or c) few people had copies of even *parts* of Scripture, let alone the whole canon, or d) few people could read the Scriptures, even assuming they had a copy. So, it really is just a logical absurdity to accept Sola Scriptura as a fundamental doctrine, when this doctrine does not abide by its own principle, and is contrary to everything we know about Christian faith and practice in the early Church.
          Along the same lines, the only verse in Scripture that contains the words “faith” and “alone” together, is in the epistle of James (which Luther, on his *own* authority, calumniated and despised and wished to eliminate): it says, “you are not saved by faith alone.” So, Sola Fide goes one step worse than Sola Scriptura; Sola Scriptura is not in Scripture, but Sola Fide directly contradicts Scripture. St. Paul emphasizes that a man is not justified “by the works of the law,” and that in fact any man who works thinking he is owed salvation as payment for his deeds, is ignoring free justification by grace, through faith. The Catholic Church has always upheld that nothing man does can merit salvation, and that a man is not saved by anything other than the grace of God. But grace operates through faith, and faith is not simply intellectual acceptance (for even the demons believe, and tremble), but is credit in God and the resolve to act upon what one believes of Him. This is why faith without works is dead, and why we show our faith by our deeds, and why we “work out our salvation with fear and trembling.” Nothing merits justification and salvation; no human power could continue to perdure in good works and attain to the moral perfection which Christ commands. But grace, through faith, bestows salvation and the power to abide in salvation upon the Christian. Thus, though the Christian must abide in this, abide in Christ, in the end he knows that the power that freed him and preserves him is God’s. Hence, the Church teaches that no man merits salvation or justification, but that a man *after* being justified, can merit, in Christ and with Christ, the increase in the grace that preserves us in justification and sanctifies us, bestowing upon us a true participation in the Divinity, as St. Peter’s epistles say. We have “no righteousness of our own,” but only share in the righteousness of Christ. But this does not mean that we are merely “declared innocent,” like “dung covered in snow” (as Luther, I believe, said). We are actually reborn, remade, given to participate in the Divine Nature, joined to Christ Himself, and, with His righteousness, actually become morally perfect, free from stain, wholly just in very deed. This moral perfection, because it is so obviously beyond our natural powers, we necessarily acknowledge to be from Christ, and to be Christ’s, bestowed upon us freely. Our task is to remain faithful to it, by His grace and assistance. This is why you are not saved “by faith alone” (Luther’s erroneous doctrine), but “by grace through faith” (the actual statement of St. Paul in his epistle to the Galatians). Salvation comes freely through faith, by grace. It is grace that saves, that justifies, that perfects, yes, even that deifies. Faith is the channel by which it comes, not the deed that deserves salvation – for that would truly be to work with the expectation of being owed.
          I’ll conclude by saying that I was struck, even as a Protestant, by how much the Bible seemed to deal with the Church and unity with Christ in the Church, and how little it seemed to deal with “accepting Jesus as your personal saviour.” For me, the New Testament clearly sets forth the Christian faith as an organic relationship of real union with Christ in an Apostolic community; it does not speak of Christianity merely as a philosophy to be believed or lived, especially not if this is done on the mere authority of one’s private opinion about Scriptural apophthegmata. Scripture speaks of the “Church, the pillar and bulwark of the Truth;” Christ says “if he will not hear the Church, let him be to you as the heathen and tax collector.” What is the Church? Well, Christ clearly told Peter He would establish it upon him and his confession, gave him the keys, and bestowed upon him and the other apostles the power to forgive sins and to bind things upon earth and heaven. Christianity is membership in this household of faith, ruled by Christ’s vested authority in Apostolic ministers, visible and concrete and historical, just as Jesus Christ Incarnate was and is. Realizing this, the only thing to do is to find out where this body is today.
          What follow are some links to sites that contain information about the early Church’s conception of Herself, with special emphasis on the essential role of the papacy for preserving the fulness of Apostolic authority entrusted to the Church in the ministry of St. Peter, prince of the Apostles. Though, as I said, there are grave reasons to believe we are now in the great apostasy and that the recent popes are problematic (we can get more into that, if you want), the fact is that the integrity and continuity of the Catholic Faith all the way to Pius XII is evident; even after Pius XII, the current popes have not officially endorsed heresy or altered the teachings of the Church, though they have done much to obscure it. We must embrace the integrity of this Catholic Faith, rejecting the deliberate obfuscations of modernity; my recommendation to Western men, is that they join the Society of St. Pius X or the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church, and carefully study the purity of the faith. As a word of warning, I will point out that some Eastern Rite parishes are now embracing heresies of their own, generally the mystical obscurantism of Palamism and anti-Latin sentiment consequent thereto. The Council of Trent and subsequent development of theology are just as binding on the Eastern as the Western Churches!
          https://www.youtube.com/user/SetonsH4ll/videos (many videos dealing with authority in the early Church)
          http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Papacy.htm (especially read the analysis of the Lambeth Conferences)
          http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/79-history/187-infallibility-and-vigilius.html (explodes the myths often asserted about the supposed time – the only time – that a pope officially defined heresy)
          God bless!

      3. Brother Cui,
        I am fascinated by this fantastic explanation!
        If I am not mistaken, you hold the Platonic view that evil has no substantive existence, for it is merely nothing more than the “turning away from the real/Truth/God”.
        In other words, no creature is evil by nature, but becomes evil when it turns away from its own real essence and, therefore, Divine Law.
        It follows that it is in embracing God and His Law that we become our true selves (and, therefore, become good).
        Brother Cui, would you help me understand Catholic theology? Would you provide me a reading list so I can understand how the Church explains the structure of reality and the universe?
        Thanks in advance for your help and for the illuminating reply.

        1. Yes, I hold to that view, which is also the Church’s.
          You may want to read the works of Ss. Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure and Albertus Magnus, not to mention various works of the Church Fathers. Two good books to get are the Enchiridion Patristicum by Rouet de Journel and the Enchiridion Symbologum, Definitionum et Delcarationum by Denziger. If you read Greek/Latin, these two books will be fine; if you need English, the Enchiridion by Denziger is available in an English translation (and updated edition); the Enchiridion Patristicum is published in English, also updated somewhat, under the title “The Faith of the Early Fathers,” by Jurgens. Each of these books has an index in the back, which leads to passages from the Fathers or from official definitions of the Church on the whole range of theological topics. These passages are often rather brief, but they of course point the way to other works that you’ll want to read at greater length. They are also excellent resources for the Catholic, because they provide a way to know exactly what the Church teaches and thinks about most any topic.
          Finally, I would suggest reading the works of Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, especially his book “Reality: A Synthesis of Thomistic Thought.” This book will probably provide much of what you are seeking. You can find this and many of his other works downloadable for free, in various languages, at the Calibre library (along with many others). I have never been able to figure out how to use the Calibre library from its main page, so here’s a link straight to a list of Garrigou-Lagrange’s books: http://garrigou.us.to/browse/matches/authors/134 If you click “home” at the top, you can browse and search for other works by author, title, etc. There are many good books to peruse. Enjoy!

  5. I’m not a big religous person, but that was a good interview, particularly this line because it applies to everyone regardless of your particular spirituality, or lack thereof.
    “In a world without honor or integrity, consider your own honor and integrity all the more priceless.”
    This is 100% true. Men (and real women) should always do what they believe is right regardless of whether anyone values it, cares, or even notices.

    1. Integrity, caring whether something is right, honor, is as repellent to the vacuous trendy western female (& male) as crosses are to vampires.

  6. MURICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  7. Pure red pill. ,,Wisdom” would be the trivial word to describe this article, Mr. Pertinbet’s purity in his affirmations take him a step further, a step above what we know and fight for, a step closer to God. Thank you Quintus for promoting meritocracy among us fellow readers.
    I salute you from a position of great hope and dreams for our society.

  8. “The modernist cares not whether something is Right and True; one only needs the “right” to do something without regard to what is Right and True.”
    only got this far in before deciding THIS GUY IS A LEGEND. Now back to reading the rest!

        1. I actually have never asked him. I’m sure he values his privacy, so I’ve shied away from direct questions about his background. But you might want to ask him here in the comments. Maybe he does not mind talking about it.

        2. Originally the great state of Arizona, but I’ve been all around the country now. I’ll be heading off to the Appalachians for the next few years. Afterwards, wherever God takes me.

        3. I am originaly from the mountians of KY. there are some good people of faith there still. among the wreckage of modern life and poverty. good luck there , they need you.

        4. Thanks for chiming in Cui. The appalachians are indeed pretty. Do you generate your own income with odd jobs? Or what typically are your day to day tasks / objectives?

        5. For the past year I was paid to teach at the University; I also provided health care and manual labor to some local seniors who needed a bit of help, and provided tutoring to some local students. I’ll be teaching Latin next year and, if I cannot make a living purely as a priest, which seems likely, I will probably run a small school, publishing house or religious goods store.
          My objectives for the past few years have been mostly academic. I’ve got a variety of pastimes, from brewing beer to bushcraft to writing, translating and editing various texts. I like making incense, too, though I no longer have the equipment for it and will have to wait until the money materializes to buy it and get to work again! Some of these will generate income soon, God willing.

        6. Thanks; Kentucky seems like a quintessentially American place, and I’m looking forward to appreciating the culture while I’m over that way. I hope to hit the bourbon trail, too, and see our nation’s native spirits up close. I am dirt poor myself, so I should fit right in with the folk of Kentucky and West Virginia.

        7. The idea is tempting, especially when I get so many kind expressions of appreciation for my thoughts. I don’t know exactly why I am hesitant about it, because rationally I know it is perfectly moral to accept donations from generous and appreciative people. I suppose if I were saying Mass, visiting the sick, doing something material and physical for people, I would feel more comfortable. When people express such generous sentiments on the internet, I feel like I’ve really done nothing to deserve it.
          I see the SJWs with donation pages all the time, asking for cash in exchange for their profound, leftist diatribes. I know there’s no comparison, but for some reason I just shy away. I truly thank you for the sentiment behind what you said, though; it’s extremely kind. Maybe someday I’ll get over the reticence, someday!

        8. You gotta adapt with the times. The internet is the new church. Get a web page setup, give sermons over youtube, post them on your blog, and humbly ask for donations.
          Remember during the 400-1000 AD monasteries were huge. Having children back then wasn’t an option for many men so tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of men devoted their lives to God. Monasteries were setup all over Europe and present day Turkey. They single-handledly kept Western Civ in contact from East to West during this time and improved the lives of millions of others. I’m sure you know of their exploits – from trade, to education (teaching others to read and preserving classics), and tending the sick and war torn were many of their essential services.
          So there is a precedent for what to do as Western Civ becomes scattered like it once was. The internet is going to satisfy the same needs as the old monasteries once did. Use the funds from the internet church to give to those in need. I plan on doing the same thing with my own pastor soon. Don’t ignore God’s calling.
          One question I do have for you, however, is why did you switch from Orthodox to Catholicism? I find the idea of a pope blasphemous. I was born Orthodox and although there are many problems in this church, they still seem fewer than other churches. Also, there is an unbroken line of tradition in the Orthodox church for nearly 1800 years.

        9. Sorry for missing your post, Samseau. I agree with you; I think I do need to adapt. A part of me fears the prospect of simply being given money, as I think any good monk should. But I suppose that what I should fear more, is impeding the work of God by shrinking from the opportunity to do more when the means for it are presented. One has to learn the balance between yielding an increase on the talents one has, and avoiding the temptations that can come with such an increase.
          I suppose that, in fact, it is a form of pride to think that “I don’t deserve” money. The money is not offered because “I deserve” it, but because I try to do more for the sake of God, and He deserves it. The truly humble man views it as God’s money and God’s business, not his own. Shows that I still have much to learn.
          I will agree that the papacy is the hardest thing about the Catholic Faith, especially for modern men. However, especially after I learned to read Greek and Latin, I did come to the conclusion that the Church of the first millennium accepted the papacy and its administrative and doctrinal primacy. The Orthodox Church has, in many places, maintained its external customs substantially as they existed around the 11th century. For this reason, and because its traditional reverence of tradition and of holy things is still culturally intact (though, in my experience, it rapidly vanishes amongst Western convert communities, or in communities that have assimilated to Western culture), whereas the apparent structures of Catholicism are in a shambles at present, it is easy to conclude that the Orthodox Church is the authentic Church. At first glance, it seems an open-and-shut case. Adding to the problem, was the fact that most Catholic apologetics (in English) until recently advanced very weak evidence from tradition as “proof” of Papal prerogatives: a letter from Pope St. Clement; Patristic statements talking about the primacy of the Apostle Peter, while simply assuming that one would equate this with the papacy, etc.
          But as I learned more about history, especially in primary sources, I was surprised to see that, while there are absolutely no saints and fathers on record teaching *against* the papacy, there are many – Popes Sts. Hormisdas, Gelasius, Celestine, Agatho, Leo, Gregory, etc., and saintly patriarchs of Constantinople such as Ss. Proklos, John Chrysostom and Nikephoros, and other saints such as Jerome, Augustine, Maximos the Confessor, Theodore the Studite, Sophronius (of Jerusalem), etc., etc. – not to mention the plain facts of many episodes of history, that positively support the papacy in explicit terms. In fact, the only reason the primacy of the papacy was obscured, was that Constantinople attempted to elevate itself, first to “second place,” and then to “co-Rome,” with the result that fighting with the papacy became a necessary activity for that patriarchate.
          This was constantly opposed by the papacy, and Pope St. Leo the Great in fact refused to confirm the relevant canons and declared them “null by the authority of St. Peter” – an act whose authority and validity was acknowledged at the time. The fact that Constantinople was technically dependent upon the authority of the Metropolitanate of Herakleia was embarrassing for Byzantium, now raised to be Constantinople and capitol of the East; there was thus a long, sustained campaign to try to create a rival status to Old Rome. Though everyone was aware that Byzantium was not an Apostolic See, and the Ecumenical Councils in fact refused to accord it the honor of any apostolic pedigree for some time, the story was invented that St. Andrew evangelized there, in order to create a rivalry (since St. Andrew was the “first-called” apostle and brother of Simon Peter). This rivalry ultimately fulfilled the prophetic words of Pope St. Leo the great who, in confirming the nullification of the canons of Constantinople I and Chalcedon, when responding to the Eastern bishops’ request for their confirmation, warned that “he who attempts to take what is not his to the detriment of his brethren, will lose even what he has.” I could multiply my explanations of the historical and theological facts pertinent to the Roman primacy at length, but I’ll put a few links at bottom that deal with the most pertinent information.
          I’ll conclude my remarks on Roman primacy by stating that the actual doctrine as held by the Roman Church is far from the popular conception of it. I think most people imagine that the Catholic concept of a papacy requires people to submit blindly to every papal decree. In fact, the history of the Latin Church and the teaching of the most authoritative teachers (like Ss. Thomas Aquinas and even Robert Bellarmine, a great doctor of the papacy and its powers) constantly affirm that a pope can be an heretic, that the Church has the right to defend itself against such a pope, that his impious or erroneous decrees can and often must be disobeyed, etc., etc., and there are plenty of examples of such things happening. Unfortunately, many Catholics are poorly educated nowadays, and have that “the pope is always right” mentality, which has caused so many of them to go along with the apostasy of recent, apparent popes. But in fact, the strongest thing a Catholic can say about the papacy is: when there is no serious question that the pope is actually a valid pope (i.e., there is no question of heresy or an invalid assumption of office), he has the authority to rule over the Church as her chief legislator (though any commands contrary to Divine Law *must* be disobeyed, and any commands that are otherwise unjust may be either obeyed or disobeyed according to prudence, as with any authority); he also has the prerogative, after having taken due council with the Church and Her Tradition, to solemnly declare the Church’s teaching beyond suspicion of doubt. However, in his ordinary teaching he can err, and in fact popes have erred in the past. The Magisterium of the Church (the present and living voice of Ecclesiastical authority) is the *secondary* rule of faith, but the Tradition is the primary rule of faith. If a pope goes counter to Tradition, as has certainly happened in the past 60 years, there is no obligation to follow him. All the prerogatives of the papacy are there to provide for the authoritative governing of the Church within the norm of Tradition, not to establish an authority that can command contrary to tradition. The power exists to build, and the authority must be real, otherwise it is toothless and impotent to perform its task; but the faithful must realize that it can and must be disobeyed when it errs. Because of its importance to the life of the Church, Catholics have the assurance that under almost all, normal circumstances, the Roman See will be uniquely free of error when it has a valid pope, such that maintaining communion with a valid pope of Rome is an essential quality of being a Catholic. One should maintain communion even with bad popes, refusing to commemorate them only if the Church officially recognizes a pope’s auto-deposition, or if there are grave reasons to doubt the validity of his election in the first place. The codes of canon law have in fact always recognized, however, that those who disobey Rome because they feel there is a crisis, or refuse to commemorate the pope because of a serious doubt about the validity of a claimant to the throne of the Holy See, as certainly is the case since Paul VI, are not guilty of the sin of schism and are immune from ecclesiastical penalty in most cases, so long as they continue to affirm the Catholic Faith and believe that, in theory, when a pope’s validity is confirmed, he is owed the due obedience as prescribed by the Catholic Faith. This is why I believe the Catholic Faith, but also believe that one must resist the past several men who have claimed to be popes, and especially the current one, who appears to have nothing more than a tribal loyalty to “Catholicism” as a cultural entity, while being completely devoid of anything resembling the Catholic Faith.
          For me, what finally pushed me over into the Catholic camp was the consideration of doctrinal purity on other fronts. The Greeks raised the controversy over the Filioque primarily as a tool for deflecting papal pressure in the Monothelite heresy, with Patriarch Paul II of Constantinople first raising the issue after Popes Theodore and St. Martin had excommunicated him. This was the first time an objection had been raised to the Filioque, even though it appears in some Eastern Fathers and was known to the East before this time. The Filioque was simply a pawn in the game, designed both to deflect the pope’s condemnation and, at the same time, to attack the prerogatives of the Roman See. They took the approach of Protestantism, and said that the Scriptures simply say “proceeds from the Father,” ignoring the fact that the same argument had been raised against Eastern bishops regarding the phrases “homoousios” and “homoiousios” in the Arian controversy, or the use of “hypostasis” to refer to the persons of the Trinity (an innovation of the Cappadocian Fathers), etc. The rule of faith in the Church is Apostolic Truth; the Scriptures merely record a portion of this rule of faith, but do not bind the faithful to only accept what they can find in them. The fact is that the Filioque was taught by Eastern and Western Fathers (most notably Ss. Basil the Great, Maximos the Confessor, Gregory of Sinai, etc. in the East, and by Ss. Augustine, Ambrose, Hilary, Leo the Great, Leo IV, Martin I, Prosper, Caesarius, John Cassian, Cassiodorus etc. in the West). Similarly, I came to see that the Immaculate Conception was taught by Ss. John Damascene, Nicholas Cabasilas, Gregory Palamas (implicitly, not explicitly), etc. in the East. Also, the West maintained the correct doctrine and practice regarding divorce and contraception, now abandoned in Orthodox circles. The purgatorial fire and other doctrines related to Purgatory were always taught in the West (and the East), and the only real objection to the Western formulation of the doctrine is terminological. Once I came to understand the insights of Scholastic theology, and saw that the only difficulty was a difference of terminology and willingness to synethesize the Patristic Tradition in such a way as to form clearer insights and principles that did not alter anything fundamental about the Tradition as it had been handed down (which the Church has always done with each theological development), it just became clear to me: Orthodoxy is a kind of “Hellenist fundamentalism,” insisting that only the Tradition as it developed in 9th-14th century Constantinople is valid; the existence of Latin Fathers and Latin theological formulae can be tolerated only when they are subservient to this. Contrarily, I could see that Rome, with its papacy and its sympathy for the universal Church, had always sought to affirm, to contemplate, to synthesize, clarify, strengthen and develop the Universal, Apostolic Tradition. It was absurd to believe that Rome had maintained the faith more purely on every point *but* the papacy. Finally, Orthodoxy has twice reunited with Rome and then recanted. We were promised that the Church would not err; I find it hard to swallow, then, that the True Church has twice sold out her official principles in very official ways.
          That, believe it or not, is still the “short version” of how I made my choice. Sorry if the explanation was too long!
          The promised links:
          https://www.youtube.com/user/SetonsH4ll/videos (lots of videos breaking down common points of theological disagreement between Catholics/Orthodox, with many Patristic quotes – I personally verified the authenticity of most quotes in the Greek original texts)
          http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Papacy.htm (especially read the analysis of the Lambeth Conferences)
          http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/79-history/187-infallibility-and-vigilius.html (explodes the myths often asserted about the supposed time – the only time – that a pope officially defined heresy)

  9. Like BK I have a question for Cui.
    Let’s just take the Hindus to start. There are over a billion Hindus that grew up in a place where God orchestrated their cultural separation and as a result they were raised with the wrong theology and missed the revelation. If I understand your faith you believe that regardless of how pious of a life they have lived they will now spend an eternity in torture and torment.
    However your run-of-the-mill rapist and serial killer of children need only take Jesus as his lord and savior before a last meal of steak and fries and he will bask in God’s glory forever.
    How is this a moral framework that has even a shred of moral accountability?
    I have asked this question of religious people and have yet to get an answer that makes any sense at all. Can you perhaps provide one?

    1. I am not Cui, but let me take a stab at this…
      Firstly, God orchestrated the Church, that is about it. Every single one of us has free will. Complete and utter free will. Perhaps, I misunderstand your intent, but it sounds like you are confusing Catholics with fatalist/predestination types.
      As to the Hindus…those who live virtuous lives are still eligible to enter Heaven. See this link… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtuous_pagan Being Catholic is considered the perfect path, but not absolutely necessary. As Cui warned in his interview though, once the Truth of Catholicism has been revealed to a person, they are in dire peril if they then reject it.
      About the child rapist/murderer…In Catholicism redemption starts with repentance and acceptance of Jesus, however, it does not end there. Again, you may be confusing Catholicism with the fundie types. Key to complete forgiveness of sins is atonement. In the case of your child rapist, if he confessed his crimes to a priest, he would not receive God’s pardon until he also gave himself up to civil authorities, cooperated fully with them and served his sentence, even if he received the death penalty.

      1. In my example he is on death row so by definition he has already been tried and convicted so I am not sure what you are saying there. And reading the link you sent me it says the virtuous pagans end up in the “first circle of hell” or limbo.
        So to be clear you are saying that the rapist/murderer of children will go to heaven and bask in God’s glory so long as he is really sorry and take his punishment (in this case death) but the pious Hindu will be put in limbo in the first circle of hell? Do I have that right?

        1. The rapist- If he is utterly sincere and has made amends to the best of his ability (such as telling where all the bodies are), then yes. It may be only his fear driving him to repent, but while imperfect, it is enough.
          The relevant part of the wiki page is this…”The Roman Catechism issued by the Council of Trent, based on the opinion of Thomas Aquinas, asserted that these souls were waiting in a limbo between heaven and hell, and were freed at Christ’s Harrowing of Hell.”
          That means they waited in limbo until Christ freed them, to go to Heaven and even practicing Catholics go to Purgatory.

        2. Have you considered the others?
          Hindu: no morality exists.
          Buddhism: no morality exists
          Islam: Morality is to behave as a warlord.
          Judaism: Died as a religion in A.D. 70 and now has no way to do sacrifice and has given up on a Messiah.

        3. There are only 2 religions, Islam and Christianity. The others are either dead, falsified, or admittedly myths.

        4. As a follower of the reformed tradition. I’d say investigate whether the religion is true. The problem is people regard Christianity as a set of rules to follow so they can be a Good person which is false. Christianity is the salvation of one’s soul from the 2nd death due to one’s sins. The blood of Christ enables one to stand on the day of judgment before a holy a and righteous god and be considered innocent. To be absolutely naked with warts and all will not enable you to do so well on the last day.
          The moral framework cames after you are saved and is a part of the Christian life the ultimate goal of which is union with God.

        5. DS, Your real question is ‘Will God do what is right?’ You have, based on your cursory reasoning, concluded He won’t
          Cool. you go with that.

        6. It’s called ‘grace’. You should be thankful that we all don’t get what we really deserve.

        7. Well, unless you’ve studied them all, your argument cuts both ways. You see, there’s no reason why you should think that your humanist indifferentism is right, until you’ve studied everything, too. It sounds like you’ve got work to do before you’ll be commenting on this topic again, given the premises you seem to accept as valid!

        1. The Church is composed of humans, who are fallible. Hence, they have been corrupt in the past.
          It is not the Christian Church itself, but the God we worship, who is infallible and perfect.

        2. how do you know that? and if god is infallible and perfect, why would he allow his church to fuck up? I guess you fail to realize how much you are stretching and how utterly stupid you sound to any rational thinker…

        3. Human beings have free will, even the ones in the Church. That is all I am saying. Catholic doctrine does not claim that no one in the Church sins, but rather the opposite, that all members of the Church sin, and that only through repentance can we come to God.

        4. The problem with Catholicism is that unity, truth, and salvation are found through an institution primarily and a doctrine or method secondarily (if at all). Therefore, it is completely relevant about how much corruption there was for such a long time (if it ever ended).

        5. No, this is not quite true. The Institution and the Doctrine are both fundamental, of course, but the institution itself has clearly defined that nobody is required to obey the institution when it is violating divine law, and that, if the institution is failing in its duties utterly, salvation can be attained by entirely by-passing the usual functioning of the institution. The desire for baptism supplies the grace of baptism, if one is not able to receive baptism; the desire for confession, with perfect contrition for one’s sins, itself supplies the remission of sins if one cannot receive absolution from the institution; in every way, the institution has made sure that nothing *absolutely necessary* for salvation, must be gotten from the institution if it is openly neglecting its duty to provide it.
          But, yes, if one is able to get the usual means of grace from the Church and does not, simply because one has more or less irrelevant complaints about the personal unworthiness of various ministers, then one is cutting off his own nose to spite his face. One is obliged to be baptized, go to confession, etc., even to unworthy ministers (so long as they are valid ministers), if they are available.

    2. You’re citing(accepting Jesus as my lord and savior) is a Protestant heresy. The only way to gain grace is the sacrament of confession. PERIOD

        1. Right. That’s likely. God creates the cultural separation so that people are indoctrinated and brainwashed their entire lives to think a certain set of beliefs but all it will take is for someone to say, “Hey dude, you are praying to the wrong God and reading the wrong book. Use this one” and people will just change their beliefs.
          Would it work on you? Nope. Will it work on the 6 billion+ plus? Nope. God sets it all up this way and in your view the fair and reasonable result is 6 billion+ people that will spend an eternity in hellfire. Yea that makes sense.

        2. It does work and it has worked for thousands of years, more for the Christian religion than any other perhaps.
          Are you celebrating pot legalization right now?

        3. Yes, this pious sentiment has been affirmed by many in the Church. Those who sincerely seek God will find Him. Sincere seeking involves more than a mere wish and a prayer, though!

      1. The Catholic Church does teach that even the mere desire for baptism, with the intent to be baptized as soon as possible, will confer the grace of baptism if one dies before he can be baptized. The Church also teaches that perfect charity attains the forgiveness of sins, and perfect charity always contains the (at least implicit) desire to go to confession – the Catholic knows that he does not have perfect contrition if he does not intend to go to confession, but the person who does not know that an obligation to confess exists, would have an “implicit” desire for confession in perfect charity, because perfect charity would want to go to confession if it knew that the obligation does exist.
        Confession remits our sins and restores us to justifying grace and the infused virtues even if our contrition is imperfect (also known as “attrition”). All of the Sacraments confer grace, although forgiveness of mortal sin is a specific kind of grace (“justifying grace”), and the normal method of attaining it is certainly via Confession.
        I know what you meant, but since so many people are not Catholic, or don’t know their faith very well, it seemed good to clarify all of that for their benefit.

    3. Christianity has a flaw … it’s belief in a personal (rather than impersonal) divinity. I was raised a devout Christian, but I always knew the question of evil (theodicy) was poorly addressed in scripture and by theolgians.
      The universe is not moral, anything but moral … it’s cold and indifferent. And as Nietzsche pointed out, the moral cause of doing best for the majority is not authentic (it’s tied to weakness and resentment).
      However, I do believe that man (some of us) is a spiritual creature. The question of purpose, the afterlife (which by no means is tied to morality), and what may be our moral responsibilities are in this life are best answered by Plato, Socrates, Cicero, Seneca, Iamblichus, Plotinus, and the like, rather than Augustine, Aquinas, and Anslem.
      Reality is pagan. Redemption is victory, not morality found in prayer, resignation, or submission.

      1. A flaw? You are being VERY generous. 🙂
        My question is why do human act as if we are somehow special? Yes we have a very evolved form of consciousness but we are simply one form of primate nearly genetically identical to bonobos. In fact man has much more genetically in common with a male bonobo than a female human.
        I think moral responsibilities can be found more easily through those things that cause the flourishing of human beings. NOT religion. Religion by its very definition is divisive and creates an “us” and “them.” We are right and the rest of you idiots are going to burn in hell for all eternity. That point of view is never going to play out well.

        1. Man needs emotional and spiritual truths; rationalism does not offer sufficient support or inspiration. Look at modern secular populations; they have mocked all of the past and sent out society on a crash course with disaster.
          Further, your claim is invalid because you are dismissing religious subjectivism with your own human subjectivism. You are not separate and above that which you deny (egoism and a mythic cosmology to structure your life). You can attempt to dismiss myth making as a flawed aspect of the human condition, but judging from all of human history, it is an essential social component, without which, man descends into chaos.
          There are major questions surrounding human evolution (I’m not talking about evolution in general). I won’t be so confident if I were you.

        2. I just find it breathtaking that religious people talk of humility. I can think of nothing more arrogant than to believe to know what a higher power thinks/wants/needs. And the fact that we think a higher power “wants/needs” anything seems ludicrous.
          Every faith makes the same claims and they simply cannot all be right (in fact even two of them can’t be right).
          I would argue that if one were to have caution, being so certain that you picked the right team when the penalty of picking wrong is an eternity in hellfire seems prudent.
          However many questions there might be regarding evolution it sure makes a lot more sense than intelligent design.

        3. If you look closely at Evolution (lectures and text books) it is very often given a character of intelligent design.
          Why do we walk upright? “Because evolution made us that way. We were made to survive by it.”
          Well, evolution doesn’t make anything, and definitely not for any reason. Randomness makes everything, and randomness happens for no reason. To argue this would be to argue with the very concept of randomness. To hack away at the concept of randomness is to build up the only other option: Design.
          Plus, the theory that if a hippopotamus gets out of the river and jumps in the ocean and swims around enough it will eventually turn into/give birth to a whale is just absolutely STUPID.

        4. Anyone, with an independent mind, who has worked in science or technology (not the tenured academians) will tell you that the supposed objectivity of science is a farce in almost all fields. Anthropology is the worst … one only needs to look at the supposed Ice Ages which explain migration patterns. I think out of Africa is equally false.
          I am a Platonist, meaning I believe all truth is intuitively constructed, whether humans acknowledge and recognize that or not. That is our only certainty.
          Science is used to connect historical dots, dots which often are completely miscellaneous. I love sicence, but for nothing more than its effect on society… it’s historicism is spurious.

        5. I think that’s a poor argument.
          Organization DOES come from randomness (look at viruses), if the universe has some sort of fixed laws. For example, if you assume gravity, you assume certain objects/forms will move in a paticular direction, others in another. To suppose those laws are the effect of a divine being is a radical jump.
          The only assumption we can make is that knowledge is possible … if knowledge is possible, we must be capable of using the same apparatus (intuiton) which gave us knowledge in the first place to decide on ultimate questions.

        6. I did not say organization doesn’t come from randomness. However, I will say that randomness does not come from nature. There is no such thing as randomness. Everything is guided by rules and laws. Point to something you believe is random, and I will show you that it cannot be random, or that you are being intellectually dishonest.
          I know very little about viruses, but I know enough about your friend Plato to know that all of nature is the working out of the divine mind. This is known as classical theism and natural theology. As scientists and philosophers, it is our duty to work out the traits of the divine mind by researching nature and gathering data, as well as analyzing it using philosophy and metaphysics.

        7. I think science and metaphysics are almost impossible fields to reconcile. I would argue that the ancients HAD reconciled the two, but that way of seeing is gone thanks to human DEVOLUTION, not evolution.
          The assumptions materialists and physicalists make are as easily repudiated as easily as the fundamentalists who think the world was created 6 thousand years ago. Yet, they proceed with arrogance, assuming secular humanism has been “proven”.

        8. The Ph.D that marks a scientist of merit, is a doctorate of philosophy. Real science is the philosophical appreciation of the universe, which leads to the formation and testing of theories…… that are then validated….. without a philosophical approach science is just a bunch of hooligans gathering statistics and worshiping each others ideas…. modern science is the religion of the damned…

        9. “without a philosophical approach science is just a bunch of hooligans gathering statistics and worshiping each others ideas…. modern science is the religion of the damned…”
          Completely right.
          You might be amazed at how much sketchy data gets published by the “superstar” professors.
          What is sad is that students with a philosophical bent are often pushed out of academic science for asking too many questions.

        10. I spent a good chunk of my late teens trying to reconcile science and metaphysics.
          Found different pseudo-theories but was never satisfied. I even joined Scientology for a couple months until I realized it was just a club for stupid people. But they do get off on a really strong group placebo effect, I’ll give’m that.
          Eliminative materialism always seemed ridiculous to me, but it is a necessary and inevitable idea to disagree with. I always preferred Spinoza as having the most all-encompassing (yet vague) and intra-consistent philosophy of mind that I came across.
          Neuroscience hasn’t gotten much closer at all to the question of why we have consciousness (as defined as the immaterial conscious perceptions we have, rather than “conscious rational thought” which is something a robot could theoretically emulate), other than picking apart its inner workings. The most interesting neuroscience research related to the problem of consciousness I’d say is Blindsight, which was discovered decades ago.
          Without any form of spirituality at all I think man has little grounding. He just chases ephemeral pleasures and feels uncomfortable without them. They are by definition fleeting and empty pursuits. In the extreme case you end up dulling your senses, in the worst case you end up embittered.
          Wisdom seems like the only true path. And I really liked Cui’s mention of charity… which I think actually does much to soothe the soul.

        11. From the experience on my own skin, I second this.
          Raise critical questions and you will arouse the curiosity of the intellectual and the envy of system leeches as well. The latter takes it’s comfort from doing as little work possible and getting the fat pay-check. It’s the latter that’s the real problem. Nepotism and stupidity, bribery and favoritism are the root-causes of leeches existing in today’s current systems. These cases must be studied and counter-measures be developed and implemented by all means necessary.
          Dear ROK authors, please take a shot at addressing the above-mentioned issues.

        12. “Wisdom seems like the only true path. And I really liked Cui’s mention of charity… which I think actually does much to soothe the soul”
          Doing it so, unexpectedly and freely not to expect reward or praise from others, without self-aggrandizement or boastfulness, is more than moral etiquette: it’s important for those of us who still retain a human conscience.

        13. Numerous scientific studies have shown that religious people are happier, have lower stress, less mental pathology, less illness, etc., etc. If you really believed what you say, you would:
          1) Not bother debating philosophical points, since we are bonobos and are not special and there is no reason to believe that human flourishing is important in any way; 2) become religious, since science has shown that it actually aids human flourishing.

        14. Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

        15. “What is sad is that students with a philosophical bent are often pushed out of academic science for asking too many questions.”
          Yup. This is very Marxist and why social justice warriors get really annoyed when questions come there way.

      2. This is always strange to me. Theodicy has never posed a problem for me, as it seems that Christianity is the *only* religion that actually deals with all the relevant issues. Most importantly, the Cross is right there at the center of it, God saying to us, “Even if you don’t understand evil and suffering, let us begin with this fact: I entered your world and experienced it with you, I suffered it Myself.”
        Christian morality is not tied to “doing the best for the majority,” at least, not circumstantially. Christianity believes in intrinsic goods and intrinsic evils; maximizing a good outcome, subjectively estimated, for the majority, is absolutely not acceptable if it involves violating fundamental principles. You should read the Socratic dialogue, Gorgias, because it completely obliterates the Nietzschean view of morality. Nietzsche actually lifted his terms, “master morality” and “slave morality” from this dialogue, though he obviously chose to side with the brashness of Callicles over the more enlightened view of Plato, who showed that the morality of Nietzsche, which is that of Callicles (and Gorgias), is in fact effeminate, weak and irrational, though it often puts on airs of being bold and strong.

    4. Let’s take your belief and work that out.
      You have believed that God created people in unity and separated them (I assume at Babel) and now they are damned due to their separation. However, you need to go back before the separation to find your answer. Before the separation they knew God and walked with him. Their fathers taught their sons about God. At some point after the separation they stopped walking with God, stopped teaching their sons about God. The same God that created and then separated them also told them they have to teach their sons, or else the sons would inherit the curse of their fathers and suffer for their father’s sins.
      However, if you don’t believe in God, then none of this is an answer at all, and additionally, your question is non-sensical. This is what you may be doing with this question if you don’t already believe in God: You are asking someone who believes in unicorns why unicorns have a pointy horn, and when they don’t know the answer, you use it as proof that unicorns don’t exist.
      If you do believe in that God- the one that separated us at Babel, then perhaps you should read His scriptures to find out that you cannot possibly judge Him.
      If you have a moral system by which you Judge Yahweh, then you need to name that moral system and rationally compare it to Yahweh’s moral system. It also behooves you to teach your moral system instead of just questioning other’s moral systems.

    5. I intend no disrespect by answering briefly and directly, but the answer to your question is that you are completely mistaken about the teachings of Christianity. You have described a view that many Protestants accept; but this is precisely what happens when groups of individuals separate themselves from the body Christ established to be “the pillar and foundation of the Truth” (1 Tim. 3:15): they have ideas that are no longer compatible with Christian truth.
      It is the Infallible teaching of the Catholic Church’s consistent, universal and ordinary Magisterium, that those who die without a knowledge of the Church and the Gospel of Christ, may be saved by God if they cooperate with His grace insofar as they are able. The Blessed Pope Pius IX, a hard-line traditionalist and counter-revolutionary, solemnly affirmed the Church’s gentle teaching in his encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore of 1863:
      “It is well known to ourselves and to all of you, that they who labor under an unconquerable ignorance of our most holy religion, yet who lead an honest and upright life, being prepared to keep the natural law and its precepts (written upon every heart by God), and to obey God, can, by the operating power of divine enlightenment and grace, attain unto everlasting life. This is the case, since God, who clearly perceives, knows and scrutinizes the minds, purposes, thoughts and habits of all men, on account of His supreme goodness and clemency by no means suffers that anyone whomsoever should be punished with eternal suffering, who does not have the charge of voluntary guilt.”
      “Unconquerable Ignorance” is the ignorance of those who have no chance of understanding or believing the Gospel, and this extends to those who are deprived of the use of their minds, such as the mentally retarded.
      The Catholic Church also rejects the idea that merely “accepting Jesus” (commonly understood to mean admitting Jesus is God and died for your sins) guarantees your salvation. The Scriptures, the Apostles, the Fathers and the Church have always taught that a man must “repent and be baptized,” to receive a justification beyond any human merit, and then continue in this salvation by living worthy of the calling, obeying Christ’s commandments, “working out your salvation with fear and trembling,” and knowing that “faith without works is dead.” “Repentance” is understood to mean having contrition for one’s sin and resolving never to return to it, God helping you.
      So, a serial rapist will not get a “get out of jail free” card unless he sincerely repents of his sins and resolves not to return to them, resolving instead to obey Christ for the rest of his life, beginning with Christ’s first commandment to be baptized. And an Hindu who strives to do the good he knows, and to shun the evil he knows, without really knowing anything about the Gospel, can have good hope of God’s mercy. That is the definitive teaching of the Catholic Church.

      1. Cui – which bible would you recommend to read? There seems to me to be slightly different flavors, so to speak.

        1. The Septuagint and the Greek New Testament, of course! But seriously, in English, I recommend the Douay-Rheims. The language is sometimes antiquated (it was published just before the King James), and this means more than just “thee and thou;” sometimes words actually meant different things. If you think that will trip you up, the New American Standard Bible is a pretty accurate English translation of the New Testament. The Church has never used the Hebrew text for the Old, and in fact the oldest manuscript of the Masoretic text (which is usually used as the base) is only a thousand years old, from St. Petersburg. This means most of our important New Testament manuscripts are far older, even though it was obviously written long after the Old Testament. The Church always used the Septuagint text for the Old Testament, and there are English translations available of that. The Douay Rheims is translated from the Vulgate, whose Old Testament text is the Septuagint’s.

        2. You’re welcome. No, I don’t have one for now; there’s no way I’d have time to keep a blog going at present, and I don’t know if I’ll ever want to have one. Though, someday I hope to get a website up with lots of information, some things I write, etc. It’ll have to wait at least a couple years, for now.

    6. I am also not Cui but I will take a stab at this.
      To borrow from the Muslims, all human beings are naturally fitrah, meaning that they naturally know, intuit and believe in God. This is the state of all human beings.
      This essentially explains why monotheistic religions are the largest in this world, in other words there is no excuse. People know.
      Moreover God of the Qur’an explicitly states over and over again that He has sent messengers to various nations, that He continues to speak to them, that divine discourse continues to happen, as does revelation. In other words, there is ample evidence, ample revelation, ample discourse, there is no excuse.
      God is so completely evident.
      In regards to the hypothetical question about the rapist and the pious Hindu, I can only state that it is hypothetical, and I’m fairly certain the pious Hindu and the rapist do not exist in the vacuum you have created for this question.
      Rape does not happen in a vacuum, actually nothing happens in a vacuum, hence I cannot answer a hypothetical.

    1. ^when she gets diabetes at age 32, we will be paying for her disability, housing, medicine, and food for the rest of her life!
      Does she have kids out of wed lock? GRRRREEAATT!
      Tack on full medical care, schooling, child support, and whatever else for AS MANY KIDS as she can shoot out!

      1. Overeating, plain and simple overeating. A little fasting, self control and reflection is blatantly absent. Our bodies were never intended to be violated, punished or abused in this manner. You only get one, take care of it.
        Shoot out kids? Must be like a regular bowel movement.

        1. How the hell would you make kids with that thing? You’d need at least four arms, a vice, and a vacuum cleaner.

    1. I was really surprised, too. I’ve always assumed monks were too removed from the mainstream to pay much attention to it. But this guy is even “hip” to terms are relatively arcane as “Red Pill.” And devotes daily time to read blogs!
      While I still doubt any form of social organization beats no form of social organization (anarchy) in the long run; comparing the wisdom of this monk to the lack of in our current political leaders, suggests theocracy at the very least trumps democracy as a means to organize a society.

      1. I could be far off base, but I was under the assumption part of a monk’s dedication is to learning and understanding. One needs only to ask a monk to share his wisdom.

    2. Various orders have varying degrees of contact with the outside world. Some, like Cistercians or Camaldolese, are essentially heremitic (reclusive) orders. Some, like Benedictines, are cloistered but may go outside for business. Some, like Dominicans, focus equally on withdrawal for contemplation, and then engaging the public in preaching and ministry. There are even some orders dedicated entirely to public life and ministry.
      My novitiate was in strict reclusion; after tonsure, there was more freedom to engage the outside world. I think modern society is at a crossroads, and I think a burgeoning “red pill” movement is an extremely important development for men. Ultimately, men decide everything; if men are recovering their principles and qualities, that’s something worth fostering. And, of course, I wasn’t born a monk!

      1. my uncle is a priest. he wanted to be a trappist monk in his youth but his dominican order asked him not to go and stay and be a professor for other priests.

        1. I wonder if he knows of the example of Blessed Dalmatius Moner. He was a Dominican Friar, but when the time was right he asked a blessing to take up a more heremetical lifestyle within the Dominican order. The permission was granted and he became a very great saint.

  10. Just a note, I think that he means “The Cloud of Unknowing”. Also, I would recommend “The Spiritual Guide” of Miguel de Molinos. Stay stronk brahs

    1. No entity in our culture is grappling with spiritual doubt and insecurity in any meaningful way. Our culture is too busy taking selfies, chugging Red Bull and watching TV to even realize it should be grappling with these things. This will, however be referred to as a great dark AGE of humanity.

      1. spiritual desolation may well engender spiritual reflection in the long term, but your right comfort, addiction and narcissism stand in the way of this

    2. I think I know what you’re saying, and I’d say “yes,” though I call it “the Passion of the Church.” The Scriptures say that Christians “make up what is lacking” in the sufferings of Christ until the end of the world, and many Saints and prophets have said that, towards the end, the Church would undergo a Passion that paralleled Christ’s Passion.
      In Christ’s Passion, a conspiracy of the Jewish elite effected the betrayal of Christ by one of His own Apostles, into the hands of a globalist power; this power’s feckless representative was a demoralized skeptic, and therefore more susceptible to these machinations; he tried to “wash his hands” of the affair, permitting the Truth to be insulted and shamefully treated in a
      miscarriage of justice, finally abandoning Him to a mob, which had been demagogued by this same Jewish elite to demand the release of
      Barrabas instead; all the Apostles but one deserted Christ, and the Chief Apostle, Peter, denied Christ three times. Each of these points in Christ’s Passion, has an exact parallel in the current Passion of the Church, all the way down to three popes distancing themselves from Christ while the poor folk have tried to warm themselves by the fire.
      The reason I mentioned the Virgin’s apparition at Fatima, is because the Virgin has been appearing numerous times, each time warning of a great crisis coming upon the Church. At La Salette, she warned of apostasy in Rome; at Fatima, she warned of apostasy and the spread of the errors of Socialism throughout the world; at Akita, she again warned of apostasy and of the greatest hierarchs of the Church opposing each other in public. We are living in “the denial of Peter,” when many people in the Church’s institutions have apostatized and condemned the world to suffer the gathering darkness without any direction. I see men in the Red Pill movement who are seeing, in hindsight, the truth of things the Church used to regularly condemn in her foresight (though now she tolerates much of it, silently). Peter denied Christ, Judas betrayed Him and the rest deserted Him, save John and His Mother, with the other Marys. Let us try to keep company with these latter.

      1. Thanks for a full response to my question.
        “many Saints and prophets have said that, towards the end, the Church would undergo a Passion that paralleled Christ’s Passion.” / “Each of these points in Christ’s Passion, has an exact parallel in the current Passion of the Church”
        That is very interesting indeed. I have always been very interested in the narrative side of christianity / theology, and the idea that the passion, the christian story, plays out so to speak. I’m not sure that he would be your cup of tea, but in that regard I’ve found Dominc Crossan to have some profound things to say.
        I will look into the church history you mention when I have time. Thanks again for taking the time to respond.

        1. One can make the argument that John XXIII did, depending especially upon what was contained in the Third Secret of Fatima, which he covered up and refused to publish upon reading it at the appointed time. The modern crisis is entirely intertwined with the fascinating enigmata of that prophetic apparition and its final Secret.
          But, certainly: Paul VI, John Paul II, each of whom fomented heretical ideas and blasphemous practices to such an extent that, at any other time, there is little doubt that they would have been declared deposed. Paul VI for his destruction of the Liturgy, and JPII for his actions at Assissi, would probably even have been put to death in a more civilized age. Paul VI directly contradicted many dogmatic decrees of Trent and of St. Pius V, and allowed the Church to fall headlong into ruin; JPII made of his whole papacy an attempt to implement the “New Catholicism” of syncretism and Freemasonic indifferentism, even though he seems to have been sincere and pious in terms of his intent (he was theologically malformed by phenomenology).
          Benedict XVI is harder to analyze; he was certainly an heretic and an apostate as a young man, though he gives signs of having repented in his mature years. The difficulty, and here I will lay bare the shocking depth of the devastation of modern times, is that it is possible that none of the (Latin Rite) bishops consecrated with the Novus Ordo rite after 1967 are actually consecrated, since the form for consecrating them falls short of the traditional doctrinal norms for episcopal consecrations. It is thus possible that men “ordained” under that rite are not actually ordained, and this would include Benedict XVI (he would have been validly ordained a priest, but not a bishop). This would explain why, despite his apparently sincere desire to return to more traditional approaches, his papacy nevertheless gives every indication of being an hollow one (since it continued to tolerate the objectively heretical situation that now prevails almost everywhere). Also, since Paul VI set it aside, no pope has worn the papal crown, symbol of his authority. In my opinion, when we see the crown again, there’s a good chance that we see the pope again.
          In my opinion, all question of the validity of modern episcopal consecrations aside, Francis has probably never been a believing Catholic, and I cannot see how it is possible that he could be pope at all. I am not authorized to declare that with any binding authority, of course; but he seems to be committed to Catholicism only as a tribal loyalty, much like he is to his soccer team. Everything that comes out of his mouth, gives the impression that he is a mere humanist, and even finds the actual Catholic faith contemptible and unworthy of serious consideration. Besides, there are serious doubts about the validity of Benedict XVI’s resignation (the infamous “Red Dossier” and the intense resistance and pressure, even death threats he faced, after 2007, his own request that the flock pray for him that he not “flee from the wolves,” etc.), and, even ignoring that, there are canonical irregularities about the election of Francis, including the breaking of several of the Papal Seals leading to various rooms of the Apostolic Palace (including the Papal apartments, a move quite possibly connected to the Red Dossier) during the conclave, and canonical irregularities of the fifth ballot, and Francis’ own ineligibility for election by reason of not holding the Catholic Faith, a fact obvious from his many public acts and statements both before and after the election). So, I don’t number Francis amongst the three “denying popes,” since I don’t believe he is or could be the pope.
          I believe that John XXIII, Paul VI and JPII are the “three denials of Peter” in the modern age: men whom I do not believe to have deliberately chosen to reject Catholicism, but who, through cowardice, confusion and delusion, were not vigilant at keeping the faith and allowed it to come to very difficult straits. The times are evil and of unprecedented confusion; we await a major cataclysm that will make the election of an actual Catholic pope possible again, by decimating the polite facade of Western society. Then, in the heat of crisis, when it is clear that polite facades can no longer save us, people will be driven to the truth by necessity.

  11. Every time a god man appears on the stage he is adding momentum to all the chaos that already exists, and we are slowly moving in the direction of destroying ourselves.
    From the interview, I can sense that CP has not been totally indoctrinated by the church but he is going to be. I’d like to read this interview again in ten years.
    Good job nevertheless, especially this part:
    I regard the first Protestants, the Freemasons, Jacobins, all those who advocate for redistribution of economic or social capital (especially socialists and Zionists), and all who defy the principle of “subsidiarity,” to be specially responsible. Those who will drink most deeply from the chalice of God’s wrath, in my personal opinion, are the clergy and religious of the Catholic Church, many of whom, even popes, seem to have completely derelicted their duties.

    1. “The Church” is either nothing more than a communion of guys like CP, or such a communion under genuinely divine guidance. It’s not some weird organism with neither power nor will to “indoctrinate” it’s members.
      For a very long time, The Catholic Church was both a community of Christians, but also a worldly power structure. And hence served as a useful tool for the usual suspects with worldly ambition. This did attract people very different than CP. In fact, people more like Barack Obama than anyone with any particular spiritual bent. Which lent many of the famous enlightenment and post enlightenment critiques of The Church lots of validity.
      Nowadays, though; the default religion in the West is atheism. Worldly power structures are at best agnostic. Hence the problem of The Church being used as an instrument for mere personal ambitions is greatly minimized. To the point where it is now those that blindly regurgitates Nietzsche et. al., that are serving as useful and unquestioning tools for the current powers that be. While those who flock to the church, like CP, are those that in the avant garde of recognizing that the secular power structures that rule in our age, are just as corrupt, as the supposedly religious ones that ruled during, and for some time after, the middle ages.

      1. going beyond that you find that materialism, is the new religion of the day, everyone worships the corporate logo, the shiny products and validates a person’s worth according to their wealth and public acclaim…. this does not give ANYONE a higher purpose and essentially amounts to worshiping the antichrist… or false idols…..
        what is missing is an introspective, higher purpose and raison d’etre, a higher calling….. religion maybe largely bogus, but at least it contained within it that which a man needs to balance his life….

  12. Beautiful piece. Everyone needs a purpose beyond and greater than themselves. Religion is perfect for this.

  13. It seems like men have an inherent need to venerate something. Only when we look beyond our own ego and its gratification, are we truly ennobled. Unfortunately, since many of us have lost our Gods, we turn that veneration towards women—with
    disastrous results.

    1. Now THAT’s an interesting line of inquiry. Feminism did indeed advance as the church retreated. And it’s so bad that all mainline denominations have been hijacked by feminism, and it is making serious inroads into the Roman Catholic church via an alliance with homosexuals. The requirement of celibacy in the Roman Catholic church severely distorts the pool of men who become priests. The Orthodox are standing firm, God help them.

      1. Unfortunately, I don’t have an unequivocal answer to the question. While I was planning to offer a few more thoughts, it seems like this whole topic has become pretty divisive; so perhaps its better just to keep my peace. Personally, none of the comments here have bothered me at all. But for some reason, people seem to cling to religious (or non-religious) ideas with a strange fervor which I don’t understand. For me, ideas have always been something fluid—not fixed.

      2. “….and it is making serious inroads into the Roman Catholic church via an alliance with homosexuals.”
        A rank assumption. Liberation theology made inroads, but good men guided by the Holy Spirit have largely purged that wasting disease. The two percent of homosexuals trying to make the Church their own will fail in the same way, for the same reason.

    2. Bingo. The feminine principle seeks comfort, rest and domestication primarily; the masculine principle seeks the ascent, striving for greater things, shunning rest and complacency. Secularization is the process of domesticating society, making it “safe and fair,” and eliminating the idea that there is something “higher,” beyond our immediate lusts, that we must always exhaust ourselves in attaining. This is why the priesthood has been restricted to men. Women represent the creation and domesticity, the passive ground that is fertilized, and thus have the preeminence in giving birth to material children; men represent the Creator and wildness, the active principle that gives life and fecundity, and thus they have the preeminence in siring spiritual children.

      1. Brother Cui,
        Your description of the masculine and feminine principles appear, at least to me, as identical to that of the symbolism of Mars and Venus.

        1. I’d never thought of Mars and Venus explicitly, but yes; the truths of the genders are so obvious and so profound, that they are present in every culture. “Father Sky” sending down the rain and sun, and “Mother Earth” soaking it up and bringing forth offspring. Man is the moving part, woman the moved part. Absolutely. Although, way back in the day, Mars was an agricultural god of grain himself, if I’m not mistaken.

      2. While I can’t deny the physical allure of attractive females, the spirit of man is
        far more noble and beautiful than the mind of women. It is men who aspire to the higher mysteries of God and
        Nature. It is men who have created
        art, music, and literature. It is men who have raised cathedrals, universities, and other enduring monuments of
        faith and intellect. And until women are relegated back into their proper sphere, there shall never be any sanity restored to this world.

        1. I wholeheartedly agree; and despite all of the talk that women are the more caring, sympathizing, loving sex, I actually find that men have these qualities. Women are the more sentimental and comforting sex, and sometimes sentiment and comfort are exactly what is needed (especially in a home). But even Margaret Thatcher admitted that, in her experience, women never really sympathized with people as people, and with their personal interests; women enjoyed the pageantry and emotional charge of *feeling* like they sympathize with people. Margaret Thatcher said that it was always men, who were capable of actually taking an interest in her ideas and authentic well-being, whereas women, finding no personal sentimental fulfillment from taking an interest in her, simply ignored her. For my part, I agree, and find man to also be the more authentically sympathetic and caring sex, precisely because they want what is best, even when this is unpleasant, and not what makes them feel like they’ve made somebody feel good.

        2. While I have no philosophical background, I’m going to take leap of speculation: It seems that sentient creatures have three basic levels of consciousness. The first level, which includes most animals, is consciousness devoid of self-awareness. And I suspect, that without the capacity for abstract or symbolic thought, this is all any creature can hope to attain. The second level, is awareness of the self—at least in an abstract sense—which includes men, women, and perhaps a few other mammals. The final level, I would call
          transcendent awareness—a state of being where the self is not annihilated, but joined or sublimated to some higher power. This realm, I believe, belongs exclusively to men—if they are willing to devote the spiritual and mental discipline to attain it. And this is probably why men are capable of greater compassion, since their feelings are no longer based on the ego—as in the case of women—but on a more transcendent source of love.

        1. Sir Cui, if I might borrow a moment of your time. Once, upon a time, I was a godless liberal. I have since renounced that path and I walk towards the Divine Light of Our Father. Are there any passages from the bible that you would help bolster my rekindled faith?

        2. 1 Peter, the whole 2nd chapter; Hebrews 3:11-6:20; 11:1-13:15; Colossians 3:1-15; Philippians 3:7-21.
          For a special treat, read 2 Kings (2 Samuel in Protestant Bibles) 6:6-15 and Luke 1:26-79 together, knowing that the house of Elizabeth and the house of Obededom are but a short walk apart.

  14. Quintus Curtius, Cui Pertinebit, let me simply say to both – in a world where most have lost faith for whichever reason, and their humanity is wounded, words like these are a glimpse of light in the darkness, an insight from – and a path towards – above the physical, material realm.
    I would chance to say, that any man who has a belief, whichever it may be, in something greater than himself and seeks the light, will feel the resonance of such articles.
    Thank you.

      1. Dear Cui, thank you very much for your words. I have recently been reading works of perennial philosophers such as Frithjof Schuon and Seyyed Hossein Nasr. The manner in which they shine light on necessary metaphysical truths and truths of human nature make a religious perspective almost irresistible. I see your words in that light as well, and must profess my utmost respect for your choices and wisdom.
        I have felt moments of connection to Unity that have left me in states of compassion that are unequalled in my normally secular life. My philosophical tradition is deeply skeptical, so it is hard for me to commit to an opinion on the veracity of this feeling. I sense, however, that I am being drawn towards a spiritual path, although my own one will likely be in the Sufi tradition if it so transpires.
        This will of course have to be at the expense (to a certain extent) of worldly pleasures – a fact which saddens me, and adds to my doubt. It is hard for me to reconcile my own belief that a worldly but wise life is the best life with the more ascetic tenets of the mystical traditions which I love. I feel that engaging with the world, whether drinking with the mafioso or sleeping with beautiful women add so much to one’s character. I really do think of engaging with the world (even with all its vices) as activity which benefits character at least (if not the soul).
        I am young, and I think I would be willing to commit whole-heartedly if I did not have this conviction that I must build my character before i can nourish my soul. I am certain that my character is still hardly formed.
        If I did take the plunge now, I believe I will always be uncertain as to my motives, and may feel deep down that I sought refuge from the world in my soul, rather than complete embracement of the world.
        I make this comment because I expect that you have encountered this sentiment before, and may have some advice. Regardless, I extend my deep gratitude for your words as they stand. Thank you.

        1. I understand what you’re saying, and at times thought this myself. I will reply briefly, by saying that often we romanticize the life of pleasure, and imagine that it will be more glamorous than it really is. For example, I came to the conclusion a long time ago that almost everybody has very poor taste in the modern world. Even wealthy socialites are grinding to Kanye in the clubs. So, the idea of spending time with these people in their bordellos, VIP lounges, etc., even if I could manage to connect with such “interesting” people (or become one myself), never held any appeal. I know there are lots of guys into game and the night life scene, etc., but – I am not speaking with any affectation, here – I actually find that lifestyle to be mind-numbingly boring.
          The general consensus of all the spiritual masters, is that sin degrades both the soul and the character. It is true, that many great souls have had to learn the disillusionment of pleasure, and the experience in some ways gives them a strength which other people may not necessarily develop. And certainly those who remain “innocent,” but only in a naive, fearful or disdainful way, are actually not “good” people for their lack of flamboyant sins; they have simply chosen a different are far more banal kind of sin. Bold sinners who know they are sinners have often turned around in spectacular conversions; pious scolds who only know how to fear and to condemn sin, without ever really exercising themselves in spiritual wisdom, rarely emerge from their hell-bound mediocrity. The best choice, absolutely speaking, lies in erring neither to the right, nor to the left: it is to maintain one’s virtue, detachment and asceticism, but always with a mind that has penetrated the reasons for the goodness of goodness, and with an humble, grateful heart that rejoices in the same.

        2. Thank you for your reply. It is a great help to me at a time when I am very confused. I agree that the life of pleasure is over-romanticised.
          In my heart of hearts, I cannot help but value game as a wonderful tool for self-improvement. If done well it necessarily endorses humility, strength, courage and compassion (I am not talking about dark triad nonsense and shallow night game). One of the most powerful ideas I have heard was that a woman can be a mirror for you, showing you your flaws and strengths and helping you to iron out deficiencies in the ego. That is how I see game, and in that specific sense I have to endorse it.
          However, it seems deeply hypocritical for me to be approaching random girls on the street during the day, only to go home and be in deep contemplation of my soul. Even though I do not lie (except about my age sometimes) it feels like I am treating people as a means to an end. But that end is one which in the long term helps me to treat people better…(because game leads to a certain kind of self-knowledge).
          I suppose only I have the answer, but for now it lies under many layers of utter confusion…
          In the meantime, I will try to develop myself according to my truest understanding of what is correct.
          Thank you again for taking the time to respond. I really do appreciate it.

        3. Sure, and just so we’re not misunderstanding, I was also referring to night-life cruising for bed post notches when I referred to “game.” Certainly, I think men gain a lot from learning how to hold and conduct themselves like men in their interactions with others, and sometimes it can be pleasant just to enjoy the interaction. Certainly there is a kind of flirting which is innocent and devoid of anything vulgar, and there is a certain delight in the back and forth of it. When we internalize the realizations that “game” gives us – things we would have learned, once upon a time, simply by growing up with real male role models around – we find that it improves our comportment generally. So, enjoy interacting with people so long as you enjoy interacting; if you do feel like you are using people simply as instruments or opportunities to “practice,” that may be another thing. Try to just enjoy each encounter in and of itself, resting comfortably in the knowledge that it is beneficial. The knowledge that it is beneficial can be passive and secondary, in the back of the mind, while you remain in the moment and simply enjoy the encounter for its own sake. That seems healthy.

      2. My sincere thanks to you sir for inspiring many. Through your words you consistently pointed back to the GOD of all who is wisdom. He indeed gives good and has used you to spiritually aid others in our individual walks – we will never meet this side of heaven but I am indebted to you. Thank LORD GOD in heaven for this man – may you shine through him many more good works in this life. Praise and glory be unto GOD.

        1. I hope that with God’s help, I may someday be worthy of your generous sentiments, here. God bless.

      3. Cui –
        What is your take on the worldwide spread of Islam?
        Birthrate numbers clearly indicate Muslims will take over Europe and are rapidly growing in America.
        You talk about hedonism, materialism, and apathy as our biggest enemies……but it’s clear Muslims will eliminate Christians once their population is high enough.
        We can improve our moral behavior, but we can’t change the growing numbers of Muslims who plan to destroy Christianity.
        This is an old thread so few will see your response but I am curious what your thoughts are on the subject.

        1. Islam is a serious problem, but I’ll confess that I haven’t given much thought to it. This is for two reasons:
          1) In the end, Christianity cannot be destroyed; I think plenty of Moslems are unhappy with the way Islam functions – as I learned from some Libyans I knew in Ohio – and I think it will have plenty of internal problems, especially as it enters the new world, to keep it from becoming an invincible force. Islam has always been “the scourge of God” against the Church when she is in sin and needs repentance. Even though the West has the power to eradicate Islam tomorrow, we see how we prostrate and humiliate ourselves before it, and invite it to occupy us. God humiliates us with it even when it is incredible that we should appear so powerless! Islam serves the purpose of God, and right now the West needs a wake-up call; perhaps Islam has been sent, once again, to give it.
          2) We cannot even begin to deal with civilizational threats from outside our borders, until we deal with the ones inside of it. Until self-loathing, white guilt, Liberalism, etc., are defeated, we cannot begin to deal with Illegal Immigration, Islam, etc. Priority one, which is already quite a task, is to find a way to liberate the West from its civilizational error, the heresy of Liberalism.

        2. Dear Cui Pertinebit,
          I’m Orthodox and very seriously considering coming into communion in the Roman Catholic Church. I’d love to speak with you, as I have a number of questions, and you seem of like mind with me. Please send me an email, if possible, at [email protected]. I hope to hear from you!

  15. “Society once had conventions, which made life with women possible…”
    I’m wondering what these conventions are. I imagine that sexually segregated schools, sexual abstinence and the flourishing of private organizations for men are part of it, but are there any others? And am I wrong?

    1. The approved presence of cultural shaming. The lack of tolerance for “anything” in the name of “being yourself”. If you take the tatted Lena Dunham of today and deposit her in the town square in the year 1870 she’d be shunned immediately and, in very short order, find herself soundly mocked, held up as an example of evil, and ostracized and cast out of the town.

    2. These, and the other social conventions that helped each sex to understand their obligations, and their place, so that they did not intrude upon the other or forsake their duties and provoke the other.
      Modern women feel entitled to live as men, despite not having the capacity to do so; they demand all the perks, including being “equal partners” in relationships, but this is impossible because 1) men and women are not, generally, equal, and 2) women tend to have a whole system of emotional difficulties which make it difficult for them to bring the kind of selfless, rational, commitment to the common good that a man brings. Men know what women want, better than women do, and if a good man is left in charge of a good woman, he’ll give it to her. A good woman who tries to take charge of a good man, will soon become a wicked, heinous she-devil of a woman.
      A man may tend to push selfishly for sex, and he may want to be left in peace and quiet at the expense of some necessary things; but a woman has a never-ending pool of emotional energy for consumerism, “honey-do” projects, over-wrought outings and social events, etc., with which she tries to compensate for her generally less fulfilling interior life. A man is capable of being in the moment and enjoying one or even no thoughts as he pursues an enjoyable hobby or pastime. A woman needs things to be complicated and exteriorly emotionally engaging at all times. Once upon a time, many societal conventions used to deflect this tendency of women away from the menfolk (no women in bars, women retreated to a separate room at house parties, women were expected to submit to their husbands rather than boss them around since there was no way of putting a lid on their incessant nagging and prodding otherwise, etc.). Now, men are expected to enable this tendency, and finance it, and if the woman feels that he is not doing this in as enthusiastic or stimulating a manner as is required, there are no consequences if she steals half of his stuff and ditches him. I speak of the conventions that generally thwarted this whole process, insisting that women drive each other nuts, since they refuse to be happy in any case, rather than drive their husbands nuts, who at least have half a chance to enjoy life for the price of a fishing rod and a pleasantly quiet afternoon.

      1. Cui, i must ask, at the risk of getting a bunch of “women and homosexuals are discouraged from posting here” quotes… What do you think of the female saints in the past, who, though being submissive to their superiors, nonetheless also wrote great theological works from which the Church benefited? Or the witness of many holy women who were known for deeds that are not merely tied with submissiveness? I’m thinking of Saints such as Joan of Arc, who led an army, Theresa of Avila, Therese of Lisieux, and Catherine of Sienna, who was instrumental in the resolution of the Western Schism. These women were passionate indeed, but they were also no-nonsense and worked to check the fickle emotions that many here hold to be intrinsic to us in the “weaker sex.” in addition, you seem to have a deep devotion to the blessed Mother, who does not at all embody the characteristics you attribute to women (she certainly did not seem like the type beset with self-inflicted emotional difficulties or angst). Why do you entrust yourself to her, a woman?
        I ask not as a feminist like the other occasional women who post here (I actually do hold to the scriptural teaching on men and women), but as a fellow Catholic. God bless.

        1. That’s an excellent question. I’ll start by saying that, broadly speaking, there are weaknesses that tend to plague one or another of the sexes with greater severity. In speaking of the “weakness” of the female sex, I don’t mean to imply that the male sex doesn’t also have its own weaknesses. But for many reasons, on the natural level, I do think it is appropriate to speak of women as the “weaker sex:” the average female IQ is just slightly lower, their average physical strength is significantly lower, and their average preparedness to face the real world with practical competence is lower. While the male capacity for acting on the impulse of aggression or lust is higher, these are straightforward, simple urges; the female capacity for acting on impulse tends to involve a seething chaos of built-up emotional knots (since they are more likely to ponder and stew and needle at length over their emotional hurts, slights, etc., and are also less likely to aim at resolving the problems, preferring instead to apportion blame or otherwise absolve themselves and nurture their emotional feelings of vindication). For example, a man will act on sexual impulse simply because he wants sex; a woman enjoys sex, of course, but often her motives for promiscuity are deeply rooted in an whole complex of issues, rather than a simple, straightforward, natural urge; when the act is done, a man forgets about it but the woman’s mental and emotional energies are only just warming up for what often amounts to a real melodrama. I am speaking in broad generalities, but I have found these broad generalities to be substantially accurate in a great majority of cases.
          This is on the level of nature, however.
          In Christ, human nature has been raised to an higher dignity and pitch of excellence, allowing him to partake of supernatural graces and excellences. Many Saints, in speaking about this, cited the proof of the new and unheard-of feats of asceticism and virtue done not only by men, but by women. St. John Chrysostom speaks of how the fact that women, in Christ, could rise to such a pitch of virtue that they even put men to shame, was a sign of the Truth of the Gospel. I am very glad that I learned Greek and Latin, for I was one day chanting the matins antiphons for St. Barbara, and realized that where all modern translations edited such things out, the original texts were constantly speaking of how she became “manly,” and surpassed natural men in virtue. A bit of investigation revealed that this theme ran through all the services for female saints. St. Theresa of Avila was constantly speaking in her books of the weakness of the feminine sex, naturally speaking (including her own), but spoke of how she needed her nuns to become manly and virtuous in Christ. Certainly female saints attained to a manly, and more than manly, level of spiritual discipline and competence: I hold in great reverence such women as Perpetua and Felicity, Barbara, Agnes, Caecilia, Lucia, Genevieva, Ursula, Etheldreda, Walburga, Kunegunda, Hildegard, Pega, Marina, Margaret, Theresa of Avila, Scholastica, Joan of Arc, etc. That women could become so utterly sharp and clear and adamantine in virtue, is certainly proof that something beyond mere nature is occurring in the Household of God! Even men, in their natural state, are not so brave, intelligent, competent and resolute as these women! They are in every way my superiors, and I hope to have their patronage; I think they would agree with my views on the sexes, and if not, I ask them to show me a better way.
          To put it succinctly, even the Pagans have always acknowledged the “masculinity” of the Sky, and the “femininity” of the Earth. The Christian has a dual charge: “humble yourself in the Lord’s sight, and you will be exalted.” “Humble” comes from “humilitas” (“lowliness”), whose root is “humus” (the earth, the soil). The Christian always recognizes that he is a creature, he is of the earth, and so, in relation to the Creator, he is always feminine (even if he’s a man) and must embrace humility; yet the Christian also realizes that the Creator has, in Christ, chosen to elevate mankind to a participation in the divinity, which means he must become manly (even if the believer is a woman). Indeed, “virtue” is from “virtus,” whose root is “vir” (“man”); virtue is “manly strength.” Thus, neither sex escapes the obligation to recognize what is weak in himself, along with what is strong in himself through God’s grace. So, yes, I would say that the greatest and manliest of the male saints have also embraced that radical humility and lowliness before their Creator, the ultimate “Alpha Male” as it were; and even the tenderest of the female saints have become pillars of manly strength in their spiritual lives. One could say that the heart of Christian spirituality lies in passing over into true, spiritual manliness and virtue, by journeying through the path of our inherent dependence upon our Maker. Though all are called to recognize both elements of this complimentary duality in their lives, the distinction between the male and female sex is a natural one, and it is why women have the preeminence in material childbirth, alone bearing children in their physical wombs as mothers, and men have the preeminence in spiritual fatherhood, alone siring children by the power of the priesthood, a power that can only be conferred upon the male sex for this reason.
          When it comes to the Most Blessed, Immaculate, All-Undefiled Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, I would say that those weaknesses typical of the feminine sex found no manifestation in Her; the Saints and Fathers who have written about Her, have made it clear that, being preserved from the contagion of Original Sin from the time she took shape in her mother’s womb, and being granted many excellent graces, the Blessed Virgin had actually passed over from the “posse non peccare” (ability NOT to sin) which grace grants to the imperfect, to the “non posse peccare” (inability to sin) which attends upon the perfect after they have been confirmed in a natural will and their choice to obey God. She did not labor under the capacity to feel emotional slights, and, being joined to the Blessed Trinity as no other mortal (daughter of the Father, mother of the Son, bride of the Spirit), and being free from the “vitiated” or “gnomic” will, she found her all-sufficiency in God and the agility and mightiness of virtue that flow from Him. Indeed, she herself became the conduit of grace to all mortals, since the principle of every justifying and supernatural grace given to men is the Incarnation of her Son, our Lord, and this Incarnation occurred through the cooperation of God’s will and her assent, with her own spotless nature as the matter assumed in that Mystery. For this reason, the Blessed Virgin shines forth as an example of pure and perfect woman, without the weaknesses that attended upon Eve and her natural daughters. May she, the Virgo Potens, the Champion General, the Dread Commander of the Incorporeal Powers and Supreme Arch-Abbot of all the Monastic Ranks, teach us all to become spiritually virile!

  16. “Clean the garbage from your mind and reject the slow-acting poison that has been poured into your veins by every apparatus of the Modernist culture.”
    The danger of entryism being used by enemies of the church cannot be overstated. Just take a look at the detritus that remains of the Episcopal Church.
    Cui Pertinebit is an inspiration. He demonstrates that spiritual discipline is fundamental to the red pill. Excellent article!

  17. And now we get to watch everyone fight about religion in the comments section. I’ll prepare the popcorn.

  18. This was the most uplifting writing I’ve read on RoK in months.
    Pure wisdom.
    Reading the comments its really great to see that many of us resonated with the basic message, regardless of religious/ethnic background.

  19. It is always a good feeling to know that there are men like Cui out there who are living a good life free from the distractions of the Modernist world. I sometimes wish life in general was like that.
    I know for me I tend to always look to Spirituality to lead me through life, the choices I make and the things I do. It does help me feel stronger when I’m facing some crazy nonsense.
    As men we do need to contact our Spirituality as its a part of the many aspects of being a man but few fail to recognize it. At times when you are all alone and the odds are against you Spirituality will come and save you or least keep you company.
    I pray every night and ask for God to watch over me, my family as well as all of you and to keep us safe from any harm.
    Powerful words coming from a powerful man who understands the world!
    We need more men like him Quintus out there making a difference!
    Great Post!

  20. Credat qui vult ! Told ya I’d buy thirty seven ‘ the book rules! And this is a superb article. To Eudaimonia!

  21. Pairing our resident scholar Quintus Curtius with long-time contributor Cui Pertinebit for this revealing interview was a stroke of brilliance.
    There is a wealth of wisdom contained here that I stand humbled before. Thank you for sharing these insightful words and for this powerful example of adhering to a strict moral framework. Few have such strength or conviction.
    Once again I tip my hat to Return of Kings.

    1. Amen to that.
      The manosphere is going to have its cream rise to the top, as with any social movement. This article is evidence of the rise of the great in our ranks, and we should all take time to contemplate the words and more importantly, message, of the interview.

  22. What a nice change of pace. A real monk interview.
    People are free to believe in what they want. Actually it’s critically important for humans to believe in “something”, be it in a figure of authority (a.k.a. god) in an institution or anything else for that matter.
    The problem with most people is that they put their beliefs in all kinds of doctrines or philosophies that actually makes their life worse.
    Belief and faith in something worthwhile helps with two of most important things in a humans existence: willpower (to go forward without fear or regret) and discipline (consistency is key for absolutely any form of self improvement).
    I try to believe in myself, in the actual fact that i can be a better human, a better man. Of course it could be easier to believe in a man in the sky, and put all blame for failure on its enemies and all praise of success on his love for his fellow subject. But in the long run it wouldn’t be that helpful for you at all.
    On the other side we should start a religion that focuses on the red pill. We could worship knowledge about social dynamics and hold prayer meetings in clubs, while meeting hot women. We could advocate real growth and personal development as a tenet of our faith, as well as truth about how humans actually mate.

  23. Cui Pertinebit is undoubtedly a clever fellow. Erudite and concise as men of the cloth can be. His views on spirituality morality, life and society do strike a chord. However the whole “religion” topic especially in relation to creeds is tiresome. The predictable back and forth discussions as to the merits or credibility of this or that faith as a superior path to God are quite frankly absurd. CP is too smart to get drawn into that kind of discussion though nevertheless conveys the impression that his faith ( Catholic) is the superior way to God . The barely veiled threats of redemption or damnation that this religion continually brings forth , do seep through slightly.
    Life is hard for everybody, we are ultimately our own mentors and judges, why listen to an organisation that is so judgemental and heaps on more guilt and threats?

    1. I’m willing to discuss comparative religion with people who are sincere.
      The “threats” of damnation are more accurately interpreted as “warnings.” It is as if a great treasure were on top of a mountain, and your friend wanted you to come up and share it with him. He would tell you where the best paths were, give you some tools, tell you how to use them, and warn you against mistakes that could prove fatal. God has revealed much and entrusted it to the Church; the Church counsels us for our ascent.
      As Catholics, we believe that God is the Fount and Foundation of all Existence, giving existence to all that is. Men, who are rational creatures in the image of God, have been granted a special privilege, but with that privilege comes also a special responsibility. The choice one makes, of how to use the gift of existence, carries grave consequences. To choose to use one’s existence contrary to its own principles, and contrary to its Fount and Foundation, is the supreme act of negation. The Church warns man against this spiritual suicide.

      1. The difference is that your friend didn’t create the dangers. When God is “warning” us, he is really warning us against eternal damnation, a concept he came up with. A hell which HE created. Your friend didn’t come up with the consequences of the mountain-climbing mistakes. A better analogy would be the “Saw” movies, where the villain puts his victims through scenarios where they have to make the right choices, or else they die painful deaths. The whole situation would have been avoidable by not putting them in the situation to begin with.

        1. Well, neither did God create the dangers, per se; He did realize, however, that a creature that never faced anything would always remain a moral moron and parasite.
          I suppose a more exact analogy, would be to say that an extremely wealthy and virtuous man with vast power, desired to help his subjects flourish to their greatest potential so that He could lavish His goods, material and immaterial, upon them with their full participation and enjoyment. He realized that if they were never given choice and responsibility, they would always remain pinched, narrow creatures. But He also realized that if they were given the opportunity to become something far greater, yet they were to be left free beings, they would necessarily also be given the choice to become something far worse. When He saw that they had indeed abused the freedom and responsibility and created a general crisis, a situation He foresaw and knew to be worth the risks, He then sent His heir to live amongst them and to put the situation to rights, for those who were willing to rise to the occasion. To these, He left a treasury of His own wisdom and authority to assist in extracting themselves from the calamity in the land, until the time should come when He would personally arrive to end the rebellion with great finality.
          God did not “create” the concept of damnation, nor Hell. Sin, evil, has always been understood by the Church, the Saints and Fathers as a defection from being. Damnation and Hell are the inevitable result of a being that has chosen to use his being to defect from being, yet finds the Ground of All Being to be ineluctable by His own, unchanging nature. God obviously cannot create a defection from being; this is a choice that a free being can make, but it is so alien to the pure Being of the Godhead, that it can only result in the most extreme and irresolvable tension between itself and Him. This is why Hell is conceived of as an abyss, a void, a pit; sin is the black-hole of non-existence attempting to hollow out existence, and damnation is the everlasting fall of the man who has chosen to fall into what does not exist.

        2. It is interesting you bring up the concept of morality. Would you hold that morality exists outside of God, or whether God himself is the measure of morality.
          I don’t think it’s possible for a Christian to maintain the former position while remaining orthodox.
          One is reminded of the discussion between Socrates and Euthyphro when talking about this issue. Is “το οσιον” loved by the Gods because he is pious, or is he pious because he is loved by the Gods?” But I digress. That is another discussion for another day.
          You seem to believe in free will, brother. Let me provide you with an example of what you call “free will.” What you call free will is not free by any stretch of the imagination. It is the equivalent of a man and a child sitting at a crossroads, with the man holding a gun to the child’s head and saying “You can go any way you want, but if you choose the left hand road I’ll blow your brains out.” That is not true free will. I recommend you listen to the Stefan Molyneux video entitled “Crisis of Faith: An Atheist / Christian Conversation” for an extensive look at this.
          You say “God cannot create a defection from being.” First of all, saying God “cannot” do anything is admitting that God is not all-powerful. To claim God is not omnipotent is considered heresy by the Church, as far as I know. Also, if God didn’t create hell, who did? “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” John 1:3.
          As discussed before, in your worldview, mankind is not truly free as it has a proverbial gun held to the side of its head. And you say that hell is non-existence? Since when did the Church start to embrace a heresy that like? Augustine or Aquinas would surely be appalled by such unorthodox teachings.

        3. Regarding morality and God, you are right that the former would not be recognized by Christians as an orthodox position. However the latter, if by that you mean “good is whatever God commands to be good,” is known more commonly as Divine Command Theory. While some thinkers (like Ockham, and I believe Averroes) held to it, it is wrought with problems, which I will not go into here. The option that is followed by many Christian thinkers is actually a third way, which is the complete identification of God as Goodness itself (and forgive me if that was what you were referring to here… it is unclear from your statement). This is consistent with understandings of God as Love, Word or Logos, Truth, or Wisdom, or Being itself (“I am who am”) as described in the scriptures, and the Christian identification (I think a sound one) of God with the transcendentals as understood by the Platonists. The difference between something like this and DCT is that when God is seen as Being, Goodness, Truth, etc. himself, rather than just a supreme being and creator. In a sense, anytime we encounter the good, the true, and the beautiful, we are encountering in some way the presence of God without whom nothing can exist. And these qualities are found in connection with each other, as they are all “found” as intrinsic to God himself. Thus goodness, and morality is understood in conjunction with Truth, Reason, etc, and is not mere diktat. Resultantly, morality does not change or contradict itself as if according to the fancies of an unstable tyrant, because it is intrinsically related to truth. DCT , on the other hand, would allow for the possibility of God going back on his own diktats.
          I do not think Cui meant that hell itself is non-existence in the sense that going to hell is ceasing to exist. Rather, as he said, hell (and more generally evil) cannot be described as a “thing” in itself, but rather as a defect or “lack” in being. This understanding of evil was in fact instrumental in the conversion of Augustine from the Manichean sect, which held that good and evil were both substantial forces like water and oil. In this context, hell is not understood as a creation of God, since it is in fact the result of our rejection of him. This sort of thing is not, like you say, like a gun pointed to your head, the reason being that a rejection of God is a rejection of Goodness, Truth, Beauty, etc.. So what happens when we reject such things once and for all? A rejection of Goodness, Truth and Beauty itself, and a life without it, is the very definition of hell. now, the faculty of a free will has to, by definition, allow for this decision as a possibility. But to say that hell is an external punishment that God set up as a consequence for refusing to obey him is to misconstrue the whole Christian framework of good and evil. Rather, the decision to go to hell is the decision to choose evil, and God, having given us the choice, is “man enough,” so to speak, to respect that decision.
          Regarding omnipotence, the notion of omnipotence of God is also in conjunction with God as Good, the True, the Beautiful, and in fact God as Being itself (and not just a being). Power is in reference to these transcendentals, and is not understood merely as “the ability to do anything” without any qualification whatsoever. Let me put it in a different way. If we say that someone is completely powerful, and someone else asks, “well can this someone become sick or too weak to lift a stone,” or “can this someone make 3+2=7?” Saying that this someone cannot do so is no affront to his omnipotence, for the simple reason that being sick or weak, rather than healthy or strong, is not a power as much as a lack of power or weakness. Likewise, power is tied to truth, for it involves making something a reality, something which would be consistent with the laws of contradiction and whatnot. Thus a contradiction cannot be a sign of power. It is rather a falsehood, and thus a flaw and limitation. When one understands evil in this framework, the ability to do evil thus also becomes not a sign of power, but rather of weakness and impotence. St. Anselm, a precursor to Aquinas known for his treatment on the Will and Power of God, was very keen on this insight.
          In fact, if omnipotence is understood merely as the ability to do anything, it runs into a self-referential contradiction characteristic of naive set theory: “If God is omnipotent, can he be non-omnipotent?” If we say he cannot, then he is both omnipotent and non-omnipotent. So either we make the very word “omnipotence” an internal contradiction or paradox and render it meaningless, or we understand it as Christian theologians have understood omnipotence in the past, i.e., in conjunction with God’s Omniscience and Omnibenevolence.

    1. If it was that unimportant to you, why bother to comment? Your anger and cynicism run deep, as it does with all without faith. You are burning out your own soul, and while I would advise against doing so, if you are still going to, then why drag down others with you? Is not your own solipsistic, atomistic death by the day enough for you?

    2. You seem to know a lot about being sophisticated and well-adjusted; perhaps you could show us a better path to such traits?

  24. An extraordinary interview of very high quality which leaves me feeling humbled. The debate it stimulated shows that Red Pill philosophy is fertile ground for a spiritual dimension and, in my opinion, a morally sound spiritual quality is essential for the long term prospering of any powerful new idea.
    I may have developed ideas of my own about the soul of Man and his relationship with God (I use the pronoun to mean all humanity, as Kenneth Clark and Jacob Bronowski did) and about possible mechanisms and constraints upon the operation of fate, but Cui Pertinebit and people like him will always have my utmost respect and admiration. They enrich the human race. As Quintus says, the man of virtue emits his own radiance.

  25. Wonderful article. Much to ponder. Akin to being exposed to the insights of a real life Yoda.

  26. Quintus, this interview is fascinating and I would enjoy reading more interviews with men of virtue.

  27. What a great read. Humbling. While certainly not all of us will have the inclination and temperament to embrace such a life, we all should give some thought to concepts greater than ourselves.

  28. “rather than realizing that nature and reason have dictated their own terms to us, and wisdom lies not in resisting reality, but in harmonizing with it.” My favorite line Qui.
    “Refuse it your consent.” Great advice.
    “The afterlife aside, a virtuous man lives the better life even here and now.” The truth. Even if it does not seem so easy or rewarding, it is without internal conflict and pays dividends as time passes.

  29. This is just inspiring. And the protestant church here in germany is nothing more then the social church for the progressive marxists. They advocate gay marriage, gender, euqality and are in fact, anti christian priests….
    Which is insane. The protestant church advocated things that completely contradicts their own faith and yet they sit their high above us little peasants and abuse the once filled churches (which are great here in germany) with their random bullshit about social topics in the language of the progressive politicians and social engeeniers. I hate these people because they have the bible in the hand, know the faith only by studies and preach the exact opposite of what the church is about.

    1. Many Socialists and other cultural revolutionaries spoke openly about their intent to infiltrate the churches from the inside, and wreck them. They realized that Socialist revolution, etc., was not working very well from the “outside,” so doing it from the inside was the new plan. The Catholic Church also suffers gravely from this at present; may God soon grant us repentance and health of body and soul.

    1. In the course of the past half century, the men in charge of the Catholic Church have foisted many things upon the faithful that range from the ill-advised to the criminal. In the 60s, many thought that a more “conciliatory” approach to Modernism was required, but now that the most perceptive members of society are seeing the dead-end of modernist thought (Socialism, Gender-Dysfunctional movements, etc.), it is easy to see that these men actually quailed in cowardice before a paper tiger, which even godless men now recognize as a sham. Yet these men are still trying hard to make the Church seem “nice,” as though this course of action did not seem every day more treasonous and counter-productive.
      The men who have effected these changes have demonstrated that they no longer have the Catholic Faith, because they have replaced everything that used to express the Catholic Faith. All the sacramental rites of the Church were re-written; the Code of Canon Law was re-written; the Second Vatican Council embraced ambiguous terms that were designed to roll back the previous century’s clear Magisterium on the social order; the Roman Catechism was abandoned in favour of a new Catechism that often quotes this non-dogmatic council as its sole authority for new dogmatic approaches.
      The SSPX is the “Society of St. Pius X,” a society run by a group of men who insisted, rightly, that not even the popes have the authority to change these things. They regard the modern pontiffs as men who have abandoned their duty; they remain popes, and all of their lawful commands must be obeyed. But, the vast majority of their commands are now directly contrary to divine law, or require us to tolerate a situation contrary to divine law, and so they are rightly disobeyed. All the Saints and Fathers have made it clear that obedience is never owed to any superior, even a pope, who asks us to go against Divine Law.
      The SSPX continues to use the Rites, Laws and Magisterial Documents of the Catholic Church, rightly pointing out that the pope has no authority to change some of these things (especially the Mass and other rites), and that, while he does have the right to change other things (such as the text of the Catechism and the Code of Canon Law), he does not have the authority to issue laws and decrees contrary to Divine Law (as in the present Code of Canon Law), and he sins gravely by allowing a Catechism to advocate for things contrary to sound doctrine and Divine Law, especially not upon the force of one of the least authoritative councils in the history of the Church.

      1. I was a good Catholic boy for a long time until my parents divorced and remarried a couple times each within the church.
        Basically the priest grants them an ‘anullment’, they pay a fee and can have another wedding at a Catholic church. No consideration for the kids whatsoever.
        I was so angry at this bullshit I havent been to church since. When I see the things Pope Francis has been saying, sounds like the dysfunction is now accepted

      2. Introibo ad altare Dei…
        CP, thank you for your granting an
        interview and your numerous elaborations in the commentary, especially
        with respect to the Catholic Faith. They are full of much wisdom and
        depth and have given me much to ponder, strengthening my own resolve to
        be a better, more manly Catholic.
        But here is where I have a
        disconnect, and I submit this with all due respect and openess to
        clarification: I believe your characterization of the SSPX is not a
        wholly accurate picture with regard to the Catholic Church’s history
        these past 50 years.
        While I will grant that the Catholic Church
        has been infiltrated and influenced by a host of modernists and their
        adherents, and that Church leaders have made some very poor prudential
        decisions, such as dramatically altering the mass (and then making the
        Tridentine Rite unavailable to those attached to that spirituality) or
        not being more precise in its language at Vatican II, the operative word
        here is prudential. And while that may sound nice, the effects of those
        “imprudent decisions” have often been catastrophic, in my opinion at
        any rate.
        Yet with that said, the Magisterium, (the Teaching
        Office of the Catholic Church) is still the Magisterium, regardless of
        the lack of prudence in shaping disciplinary norms of the Faith. The
        Magisterium calls the shots and remains infallible, even when Church
        leaders make foolish decisions we disagree with.
        What you are describing in what Vatican II did not do (or do enough or
        well) or what the Pope is capable of doing requires, I think, a quick
        distinction for those not aware. The Pope can change the
        discipline of the mass (the prayers, sequence of rituals, etc.), but
        cannot change the essence of the form, i.e., words of consecration.
        adherents, however, have remained loyal to the noble and beautiful
        traditional form of the mass but to the point of preferring to live
        outside of communion with Rome (while yet claiming to be a part of, or
        maybe even the “true” representative, of the Catholic Church.)
        other words, the SSPX does not want to admit that it is acting outside
        of Vatican (Magesterium) authority. At present, it is not, as such, part
        of the Catholic Church. It is its own separate sect. Unfortunately.
        certainly applaud the virtues of holding fast to what is old,
        beautiful, noble in the Latin rite and the culture that shaped it.
        Nonetheless, I believe that, for Catholics, the manly thing here is to
        swallow pride and “embrace the suck” of those decisions of our
        commanding officers of the Church Militant in Rome and elsewhere, who
        have left us, often to our dismay, with a partially modernized Church
        when it comes to discipline, tradition, and cultural thinking.
        that said CP, I daresay that current is dying out (I hope, at any
        rate), given the Renaissance in Catholic Higher Education over the past
        20 years, but the effects nonetheless painfully remain. Furthermore, as
        CP has pointed out in his recommendations, the Church has a vast array
        of spiritual works from which to draw insight, inspiration, and wisdom.
        Despite the modernist/liberal desire to undermine the Church by deleting
        Church teaching, it can’t. The Catholic Church’s theological and
        philosophical traditions are too rich to be totally outrun.
        you for hearing me out CP. Notwithstanding what I think is my
        difference in approach to the subject of Church History, I share many of
        your perspectives and am enriched by your witness here.
        God Bless.

  30. Who would have ever thought that a post consisting of an interview with a devout monk would garner 165 comments and counting?
    I love it, people. How I do love it so.

    1. Sir Quintus, you and Sir Cui are both truely remarkable people. Your work is inspiring and filled with wisdom. May the light continue to illuminate you path.

  31. in the words of Herod after hearing Paul’s testimony ” he doth nearly persuade me to become a Christian”

  32. This is the most profound article I have ever read on Return of Kings because it accurately diagnoses the problem at its root. I am interested in hearing what C.P. thinks our chances are at restoring the culture.

  33. I am, to an extent, a cultural Catholic. I attend church simply because of its cultural significance in Europe and carrying on the Western tradition. I am also inspired by the beauty of artwork, churches, and the Liturgy in its traditional form (not the modern bullshit). I do not, however, accept Christianity as truth, for the following argument:
    1) The Bible is either divinely inspired, not divinely inspired, or partly divinely inspired
    2) The Bible cannot be fully divinely inspired, because it contradicts itself numerous times. See this chart for evidence: http://www.project-reason.org/bibleContra_big.pdf
    3) Suppose the Bible is not divinely inspired: It is, therefore useless and nothing but speculation.
    4) Suppose the Bible is partly inspired and partly uninspired. If this is the case, God is incredibly evil. The equivalent would be giving someone instructions on wiring his house, and telling him that some of the information was true and some was false and would electrocute him if he performed the false actions.If God is good and desires people to be saved, he would not perform such an action as it necessitates a malicious intent.

    1. There is a difference between “inspired” and “dictated.” That is, men wrote divine truth as they understood it and as best as they could describe it at that moment, not that they sat down and took notes like some kind of holy secretary or that the Spirit possessed them and moved their hand. The best form of communication of the truths of Christianity is not Scripture. but the Oral Tradition. (See 2nd John 1:12, where oral teaching is preferred over Scripture and 2 Thess. 2:15, where oral teaching and Scripture are given equal weight.) I don’t believe God ever intended us to interpret Scripture for ourselves-nor to go strewing Bibles around like so many land mines for just anyone to pick up and misuse. I trust the church with the unbroken chain of Oral Tradition and their interpretation of Scripture, not mine.

      1. So basically, you are saying that the Bible is not divinely inspired. It’s also interesting how you claim the Bible is secondary to the Oral tradition and prove your point with Bible verses. How do you know God never intended us to interpret Scripture for ourselves? You can’t answer that question without resorting to a circular argument. Why would you trust the church? It has demonstrated numerous amounts of time in the past that it is one of the most untrustworthy institutions to every exist.

        1. And moderate the veil drops. You are nothing but an atheist extremist, who may very well be an intelligent functioning adult in other parts of life, in all areas of religion is an idiot.
          Deeply dishonest or untrustworthy institutions tend to die. The Christian Church has not only lasted longer than any other human institution (it’s not even close), it’s also grown to an unprecedented size.

    2. You are a liar posing as something you are not. I don’t know what you are, but you certainly are not a person who liked Christianity, dispassionately evaluated it, and then rejected it for solid reasons. And I know why you lie. If people see you as a fan of Christianity who’s simply rejected it, they’ll assume that you have thought on the issue fairly, consideration that quite frankly you have no right to which makes you not just a liar, but also a thief.
      1) The Bible is an important tool in the Christian faith, but it is not the central part of it and it is not remotely required for salvation.
      2) That’s a very large list and I couldn’t possibly go through everything in it, but suffice to say that it contains at least some items of willful ignorance such as the question of whether Abraham was saved by faith or works. The whole point of the book of James is that works are the fruit of faith, so while it’s possible to have works without faith, it is not possible to have faith without works. So when reading the verse “Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?” you should not read it as saying that Abraham was saved by works, but rather that this particular work demonstrated his great faith. No one who is both intelligent and objective could make the mistake of calling that a contradiction.
      3) You have not proven premise number 2. Also, not everything that is not divinely inspired are useless as nothing but speculation. Nobody, including you, believes this. You certainly wouldn’t say it’s true of you’re science text books, or even your history text books. The fact that you make that absurd leap of logic hear shows that you have a reason other than reason to dismiss Christianity.
      4) This simply does not follow. Even if I were to prove something as silly as the notion that even the translations of the Bible are divinely inspired, right down to the level of the individual words and letters, if salvation rested on a correct understanding of the Bible, we are all damned. It is a huge and complicated work, and reading it for exact accuracy is a scholarly endeavor that involves understanding of historical context that necessarily includes customs and cultures that have not been perfectly preserved. So it’s a good thing that salvation in no way hinges on that. Nor does any church teach that it does, nor does any child with nothing but a child’s education in the faith think that it does. This isn’t a doctrine that would even occur to anyone who’s approached Christianity with anything but a skim till offended, SJW, mindset. And that is how I know that you are a liar.

      1. First of all, I don’t appreciate you flinging ad hominem insults at me. I tried to be very respectful in my post, and I expect the same in return. I’m not a liar– I actually do attend church because I like the artistry and cultural significance of the institution. I’m not going to address your worthless speculation, which serves no purpose but to defame my character.
        1) How do you know the Bible is not required for salvation?
        2) It also contains several clear contradictions, such as whether the cock crowed before or after Peter’s denial, or who was Achan’s father.
        3) I did prove premise 2. One contradiction means the Bible is not inspired. There is at least one contradiction, therefore the Bible is not inspired.
        4) You keep on insisting that the Bible is not required for salvation… I don’t know any Christian who would give credence to this believe and I know a hell of a lot of Christians of all stripes (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox)

        1. 1) How do I know that moon ferrets are not required for salvation? Maybe I don’t, but I know that they are not part of Christian doctrine.
          What does the Bible say about it? “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”
          If you know someone who believes it requires more than that, they are a heretic.
          2) Okey dokey.
          3) You have not seriously considered the issue. What if, for example, the Bible was divinely inspired but not perfectly preserved, and what we have today is subject to copy errors? It’s a moot point anyway, we don’t have the original documents, and the documents we do have are not in anything close to perfect agreement. There isn’t a man alive who knows with certainty what the original books of the Bible contained. That’s why to an educated man you’re whole point is quite silly. But don’t let that stop you from being certain.
          4) Have you actually asked them? I doubt it. Ask any pastor or any priest, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, and they will tell you what I am telling you. I mean, for crying out loud the Bible as a compiled work didn’t even exist until the Church was something like 300 years old.

        2. 1) You contradict yourself. You say the BIble is not necessary for salvation, yet you go on to use the Bible to prove your point. If the Bible is full of translation errors, as you seem to infer, how can you trust that passage is correct anyway?
          2) …
          3) The examples I provided are not simple translation errors. They are contradictions of ideas, not just simple one or two word choices.
          4) My father’s a Calvinist Pastor. I have asked him this exact question in the past and his response was something along the lines of “Obviously it is necessary for salvation.”

        3. I believe that your summary of your father is somehow lacking. The quoted passage doesn’t have to be perfect, nor does it have to come from the Bible. Whether you read it in the Bible or heard it from a stranger in a bus stop makes no difference. You could never even set eyes on a Bible and yet if you believe that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead, then you are saved. No honest person would see any contradictions there.

        4. I don’t. I trust God because I’ve seen Him work in both my life and the lives of those around me. But, like the rest of humanity, I “see through a glass, darkly”.

        5. I don’t see how it could even conceivably be different. The Bible being 100% free of error would not change this.

  34. I have had my dealing with organized religion and am not a partaker. 95% of people need the structure and like being told what to do and how to do it.
    My one to one connection with the creator is where I find strength and some rare occasions the peace that passeth all understanding
    Today I read the bible and I am struck by how radical Jesus was. In my opinion, impossible to live up to the standards(I used to come away with guilt for not being up to the code) Now I keep it simple. Prayers for all that is good in my life. Meditation to listen to God’s guidance. Failure is a constant on this earthly plane from lower self to higher self. Get up. Keep going and learn. That is what gods message is to me.

  35. Brilliant and inspiring. Thank you both. Even the pictures of the landscape and buildings lifted my heart.
    One quibble – I think you meant to refer to “The Cloud of Unknowing,” not, “…Knowing” Am I right about this?
    I’m going through a horrible period in my life, a soon-to-be-ex-wife (my second) who is seeking to ruin me financially, 50 years old. I’d rather use my savings to help out a dying father an very sick sister. Instead I am supporting a wife who lounges poolside somewhere in the world to attract men, as well as paying for her attorneys who, by definition, are my adversaries. I honestly don’t think women are capable of fidelity in this age.
    I was raised Catholic, wish to be Catholic, but for reasons you’ve stated in the article and in your comments, Cui, there is too much corruption. Everywhere.
    Most of the “manosphere” is garbage, I despise the PUA guys, who only offer more poison to an already poisoned culture.
    This article is the best of the best, it’s the kind of thing I’ve been seeking out to find a little hope and comfort. Thank you again, and God Bless.

  36. Cui Pertinebit –
    Thank you for sharing your wisdom with us. I’m new to this site, just found it this evening actually, but it seems meant to be. I’ve had some questions I would really love to ask someone such as yourself.
    In terms of prayer, can it not be said that the proper way to pray would be to meditate? And when I say meditate, I do not mean the eastern way, or any specific recipe for that matter. Meditation is a tool of the mind, and it can be used in a lot of useful ways. I was wondering what your prescription for meditation would be.
    Matthew 6:6 “But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you” — now I know that modern catholicism has espoused that this simply means to pray in private. I have come to the conclusion that meditation has been the one aspect of life that the church has purposefully kept from society. Meditation has so many benefits beyond the spiritual (clarity of mind, physiological benefits etc.) and in my opinion, if all people were to meditate daily then the church’s position would have eroded and hence they have steered people away from it. I have other suspicions as to why they have not been teaching us this and will mention a specific instance where it became more clear to me.
    As anecdotal as this is, a trusted family member of mine recently had told me that he had been friends with a group of Catholic priests when he was in his younger days. He described many situations where these priests would bring up meditation, and all of the things that one finds when going down that path (angels, demons etc etc.) This seems to correspond with every esoteric/gnostic (as well as eastern) ideas about the nature of our existence.
    I know that meditation has been a part of the church, but the mainstream church is a different creature when compared to the complexity of all the different facets of Christianity. I know that St. Thomas Aquinas and many others prescribed that meditation was ESSENTIAL to human existence. I also have read numerous warnings from these figures about what one may encounter (possession and the like) when dabbling with meditation, and that one must be extremely careful and properly mentally prepared before they begin meditation.
    Can you please comment on this, and if you do not have any specific experience regarding these matters, would there be a source I could read more about it.
    Thanks again, I really hope to hear back from you.

    1. I’m sorry to have only just seen your post.
      Perhaps it’s because I came to the Church through the Fathers and embraced the monastic life, but I can’t understand your complaint. To me, the Church has constantly taught and emphasized meditation. Far from fearing that meditation would “erode the Church’s position,” the Church has recognized that the greatest meditators have become the greatest Saints and have built the Church up – the Holy Fathers, the Desert Fathers, the great Doctors. Where would the Church be without Ss. Augustine, Benedict, Anthony the Great, Athanasios, John Cassian, John Damascene, John of the Cross, Theresa of Avila, Francis of Assissi, John Fisher, Alphonsus Liguori, Robert Bellarmine, John Vianney, Don Bosco, Dom Columba Marmion, Padre Pio, etc.? These were all great meditators, and they constantly exhorted the faithful to meditate. I can’t think of a way in which the Church has failed to constantly emphasize the need for mental prayer/contemplation by all the faithful. I agree that the “mainstream” Church in modernity has entirely lost its Catholic identity and discourages real spirituality. But the Church’s official teaching has always insisted that meditation is necessary for salvation; we can’t blame the Church when her official teaching has always been clear.
      In all my readings of the saints’ writings, I have never once gotten the impression that the Church is concerned with preventing her “position” from being eroded, least of all by lay meditation. I find that the Saints and pastors of the Church generally have faith in the Church and believe her to be of supernatural origin and quality; they do not think in such calculated terms about the Church’s “power” and what they can do to deflect the faithful from “eroding” it. I certainly never think in this way, and I don’t know anyone who does – and I know many bishops and priests!
      Our Lord’s words about praying in secret, like many of his examples on the Sermon on the Mount, employ a rabbinical style for making a point by driving the extreme example home. Our Lord was not really telling people that they should amputate their hands or cut out their eyes if they sinned with them; here, certainly He was commending the goodness of private prayer, but the main point was that people should not pray vaingloriously for mere, public display. The God who commanded public worship in the Temple and in the Churches, was not condemning all public prayer. I can agree that contemplation/mental prayer is certainly a form of prayer that should be primarily private, and is a good use of private prayer time.

  37. I find it odd that you found the one true apostolic church and then left it for the roman-catholic heresy. But this is not the subject here and Gods has his way. Bless you.
    But one thing that all of you seem to forget in the “manosphere” is humility; you are so busy pulling “woman” down from the piedestal you yourself put her on, just to put “man” there instead in some kind of narcissistic and kind of gayish glorification. Man is falling – as in Mankind – and if we, as the strong sex, can’t even stand up staigt yourself, how are we to expect the weaker sex to be able to do that.. and even to support and comfort a man so wicked of all his sin.
    Try a little humility; that is the true foundation of the glory you so desperately seek.

  38. “A dead man judges no one, and it is just the same with the man who is humble.” Fr. Longinus (4th century)

  39. “in the Lord Jesus there is neither male nor female, but a new creation (Gal. 3:28).”- Synaxarion (November the 17.)

  40. Anyone with a “Catholic” background should disregard the SSPX and go straight for the jugular by checking out conclavism, with honorable mention of sede vacantists, sedeprivationists, etc. I am currently under pope Michael. If you google all these buzzwords you’ll see what I mean and why the latter oppose the SSPX. The SSPX is in a theological no man’s land, as Catholics are to obey true popes, and they recognize Francis as pope but disregard his commands (the heresies of Vatican 2). There were talks about electing a pope within the SSPX by the remnant bishops but they never went through with it. Hence pope Michael has stepped up to the plate with a lay election in lieu of a bishops’ election. Lay elections are contentious and I still need to do more research as does everyone, but if we could get a functional network under a true pope going again Catholics might be able to unite to dismantle the rampant liberalism. All of this is fascinating and challenging to figure out, but I think the dust will clear soon and very soon…
    p.s. liberalismisasin.com

    1. I will say two things:
      1) I have not researched conclavism, and I am suspicious of anyone saying we have an alternate pope, at present, so I don’t want to endorse (nor categorically deny) your point of view.
      2) But, for the record, my theological studies have deepened since writing this article, and, yes: I believe sedevacantism/privationism is the most orthodox position for a Catholic to have at present. It is not possible to “recognize” that Francis is pope, and all the other conciliar hierarchs are Catholic bishops, while cultivating an attitude of disobedience towards their teaching and discipline. Either they are the authentic Magisterium, or they aren’t. My conviction, is that they aren’t.

  41. C.P. said “I recommend meditation as described in The Cloud of Knowing, but mind that book’s warnings.”
    Do you mean The Cloud of Unknowing, from the 14th century?

  42. “Society once had conventions, which made life with women possible; but since modern society removed these conventions, I saw no need to waste my time. I’ve never regretted this decision.”
    Gentlemen, the Monk of MGTOW.

  43. Br. Cui, I’d like to especially thank you for expressing the beauty, truth and wisdom of the Catholic Church. I am excited to know that this forum can be a place for such a strong statement of faith. I have much to learn from your example.
    Just a note, SSPX is not in full communion with the Catholic Church and cannot represent the Catholic Church in any official capacity. Like you say, however, there are many lay, religious, and even high ranking clergy who are formally aligned with the Church but are materially astray, even derelict in their duties as Catholics. But you also give us the answer to this quandary. You so aptly refer to Our Lord’s promise of the Holy Spirit to the Apostles. Let us remember the humility required for obedience to those properly commissioned and appointed to positions of authority within the Church. As members of this body, we cannot simply recommend a group that is ill-advised in its relation to hierarchy. In other words, the ecclesiastical status of SSPX is dubious and so are the ecclesiastic functions therewith performed.
    We cannot refrain from the principle of subsidiarity here and not there. The local ordinary has the authority to shepherd the faithful of his appointed region. One interested in the faith should seek guidance from his or her local parish while exercising his or her own good judgement in seeking further guidance given good reason to question the orthodoxy of those in charge.
    Perhaps you can clarify how one interested in the Catholic faith, because of its teachings on the proper role of sexuality, its teachings on the differences and complementarity between the sexes, may begin accessing the power of the Catholic faith, through right practice.

Comments are closed.