Religion

Why Theology Is A Man’s Discipline

341 Comments

When ROK announced they were looking for a “Masculine Theologian,” I was urged by a few good men to put in for the job. Some men may have come across my past articles or comments under the handle CuiPertinebit; I now take the name of Aurelius Moner, a moniker closely related to the name of my monastic vows (for St. Aurelius Augustinus of Hippo, and Bd. Dalmatius Moner of the Dominican Order).

As I contemplated the possibility of contributing more regularly, I asked myself what a “Masculine Theologian” might be. What is “Masculine Theology?”
Not a Niche or Designer Spirituality

Well, decidedly, I don’t want to approach this as a “special interest” theology, for, in my mind, this is an inherently unmanly approach. I am a Catholic, and I often come across Catholic blogs or organizations that try to aim a message at men, turning manly ideas and sentiments into gimmicks. I’ve seen sites speak of a “New Emangelization.” I’ve seen sites that try to jazz the fellas up by fixating on a “warrior” spirituality—Catholic Knights! Soldiers of the Lord Unite!—but, in practice, all they accomplish is a white-washing of the Faith, reducing or re-formatting every element of Christian piety to an affected and superficial affinity with martial themes—a caricature both of the Faith and of manhood.

In fairness to them, they are simply overcompensating for the pervasive feminization of Christianity, from which many Christian men seem unable to disentangle themselves. “We may be mumbling our rosaries in front of this sappy picture of Dreamboat Jesus, but as long as our rosaries are made of military-grade parachord and we call ourselves Catholic Knights, and we sometimes have a dudes-only BBQ party, we will be on the way to rediscovering the macho piety of our forebears.”

Absit (colloquially: “Hell, no”), as St. Paul so often said. Men are the naturally more noble sex; long experience, and the historical record, has taught me that men aspire after noble ideals far more easily than women. The instinct for integrity, for pursuit of the ideal, for disciplining one’s self to stay the course, for actually loving others and being caught up in their well-being, rather than referring everything to the emotional feelings we get from connections with other people, is a masculine instinct; and there is no ideal, no course requiring such discipline and integrity, no love that will require such fidelity, such self-forgetfulness (even self-mortification), as the soul’s ascent to God.

Therefore, theology and philosophy have always been masculine disciplines, drawing on the nobility of the male spirit. I hope simply to continue in the best traditions of these disciplines, trusting them to be masculine enough as they are.

Doctors-of-the-Church

The Patriarchy Oppressing Women from Celestial Thrones of Glory

I won’t turn masculinity into a gimmick or commodity, therefore; but certainly if theology and philosophy are masculine pursuits, they must comprise a treasury of masculine wisdom. In an age such as ours, where the tradition of masculinity has not been passed down very well (along with many others), a recovery of so rigorously masculine a tradition as the (authentic, Western) religious tradition will naturally benefit men.

The West Always Described Spiritual And Moral Struggle As A Manly Activity

Indeed, just by way of brief demonstration, the Western Tradition has spoken of the spiritual and moral struggle precisely in terms that denote manliness.   Manliness and moral virtue are the same thing. Virtue is from Latin virtus, having the same root as vir, meaning “man.” The Greek ἀρετή (aretē), “virtue or manly excellence,” is related to other words with “ar” in the root, like ἀρρενικός (arrenikos, manly).

The virtue of the “incensive” aspect of the soul – the aspect that “drives” our action – is called in Greek ἀνδρεία (andreia, manliness), and in Latin fortitudo (fortitude, more than just bravery, means “manly firmness of will,” the resolve and courage to keep fighting despite fear, exhaustion, etc.). The chief vice opposed to this, is called in Latin mollities, meaning “softness,” equivalent to the Greek μαλακίας (malakias).

In both Latin and Greek, the term denotes “effeminacy,” if we are speaking politely; if we are speaking bluntly, they are used as epithets to mean “faggot” or “wanker.” This is the sense the word still has in Modern Greek, where μαλακός (malakos, “masturbator”) is a common insult against useless or weak men.

San-Jorge-y-el-dragón

If only St. George had read the works of Elizabeth Gilbert!

Now, I don’t doubt that most men would balk at the suggestion that they struggle with effeminacy, or need to fight it! Yet, this is how the spiritual life has always been described by Pagan and by Christian authors; it may help, however, to know exactly what we mean by effeminacy. The Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, gives us a good definition from the perspective of both Classical Paganism and the Church:

…this pertains to the reckoning of effeminacy [mollities], for a thing is said to be “soft” [mollis] if it readily yields to the touch. Now a thing is not declared to be soft through yielding to a heavy blow; even walls yield to the battering-ram, and so a man is not said to be effeminate if he yields to heavy blows. Hence the Philosopher [i.e., Aristotle] says (Ethic. vii, 7) that “it is no wonder, if a man be overcome by strong and overwhelming pleasures or sorrows; but he is to be pardoned if he struggles against them.”

Now it is evident that fear of danger is more impelling than the desire of pleasure: for which reason Tully says (De Offic. i) that “it is inconsistent for one who is not confounded by fear to be defeated by lust, or for one who has proved himself unconquered by toil, to yield to pleasure.” Moreover, pleasure itself is a stronger impulse than is unhappiness, for the lack of pleasure is a mere privation. Wherefore, according to the Philospher (Ethic. vii, 7), he is rightly called an effeminate man, who withdraws himself from the Good because a lack of pleasure disappoints him, yielding as it were to a weak movement.

Men Must Master Themselves

So, effeminacy is that inertia, that mediocrity, which shrinks from the Good because it fears to be deprived of pleasures and comforts. This is, generally, the default state of women: to be good domestic consumers, concerned primarily with satisfying desires and being comfortable or pampered; but men have always regarded this with instinctive horror.

It erodes the qualities necessary to perceive, establish and defend the good. Now, let us also face the facts: in the past century, manly excellence has completely retreated before this encroaching darkness of mediocrity. Manly excellence has fled the field and abandoned it to an army of women and degenerates. We have submitted ourselves to castration through money, self-referential sex, porn, gluttony, abundance, sloth and entertainments. We doffed our armor and let a gaggle of Pyjama Boys pillage the culture. “That which yields easily to a light blow,” is effeminate.

I hate to say it, men, but this aptly describes late, Western man. We have been seized by a great effeminacy. We only incur blame if we remain under its sway, so let us overcome this weakness in all haste.

I hope I can help to illumine the spiritual struggle for men of ROK, both in the interior and social spheres. But the truths of this struggle can sometimes be a bitter pill to swallow. Still, on a forum for masculine self-improvement, the concept of swallowing a necessary but bitter pill should not be new. We have a difficult task ahead, if we are to set ourselves and our society straight; I have some very pointed ideas about that. I hope the men of ROK may find my contributions in this regard to be worthwhile.

Ad Astra!

12_07_21_Lawrence_of_Brindisi

St. Lawrence of Brindisi leading the Holy Roman Empire’s soldiers against the Turkish invaders at Albe-Royal (Stulweissenberg)

 Read More: 3 Ways To Cultivate The Discipline Of A Neomasculine Lifestyle

341 thoughts on “Why Theology Is A Man’s Discipline”

  2. How do you reconcile the dichotomy between the teachings of the church and what the Bible says, in cases in which they wildly disagree?

    1. The same way one can reconcile how two entirely different viewpoints can be founded upon any given historical text. People tend to agree or disagree with what they read and then shape the text to fit their already pre-conceived biases.

      1. Polygyny is a good example. God regulated the practice in the Law, said He had two wives (Jeremiah 31:31-32), took credit for giving David multiple wives (2nd Samuel 12:8) and there’s nothing in the NT against having more than one wife. So how is it the RCC gets off saying it’s wrong because a bunch of politicians at the Council of Trent decided to discover the “sacrament” of marriage in 1563?

        1. In Matthew 19 Jesus overturns the Mosaic teaching on marriage. He goes back to the original design of creation which was one man, one woman.
          “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

        2. The Second Person of the Trinity said: “**TWO** shall become one flesh.” He did not say three or four shall become one flesh.
          It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve and Sally.
          The bishops at the Council of Trent didn’t discover marriage as a sacrament. The Latin Vulgate (AD 382-400) was calling it a “sacrament” 1,000 years before Trent in the Latin edition of Ephesians 5:
          32 This is a great mystery (Latin: “sacramentum”), and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church; 33 however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
          Toad, don’t speak haughtily of things that you have never studied. It’s shameful.

        3. Curious, how does that square with the Scripture he quoted?

        6. Oh gosh… so the Apostle Paul was in error when he said (1st Cor. 6) that he who joins himself to a whore becomes one flesh with her?
          Wow. I guess we should toss out the majority of the New Testament and just listen to the church.
          Never studied? Heh. The RCC’s war on the nobility was indeed in effect long before the Council of Trent made monogamy a teaching of the church, but the fact that early writings referred to marriage being a sacrament does not mean they were referring to the churches’ re-definition of marriage from the Biblical definition to a state of monogamy. The Bible does not mention monogamy or polygyny, it simply refers to marriage. God regulated the practice of polygyny in the Law and (surprise!) God does not regulate sin. In fact, you might want to check with Romans 4:15 and 5:13 on that. Better yet, check Isaiah 4:2 on that subject, which is a Millennial kingdom prophecy.

        7. Read Toad’s first post that you responded to.

        8. Michael, there is a real problem with your statement that “Jesus overturns the Mosaic teaching on marriage.” If what you say is true, Jesus is contradicting Himself when He said He had not come to do away with the Law but to fulfill the Law. Second, and more important, if what you say is true Jesus was guilty of violating Deut. 4:2 in which it is forbidden to add or subtract from the Law.
          Jesus was responding to the Pharisees question about the grounds for divorce, saying there were no grounds for divorce. They followed up with a second question specifically asking about the judgment of Moses allowing divorce, which Jesus answered, and in doing so He interpreted that judgment. Notice, however, that in 1st Cor. 7:10-11, the LORD issued instructions to His bond-servants, forbidding married believers to divorce.

        10. Mmmm…I’m not so sure. It says that if you were to LEAVE your wife and marry another; not marry a 2nd wife and keep the 1st as well. Maybe I’m just splitting hairs here, but that’s not quite the same thing and the argument can be made that it doesn’t make polygamy immoral according to the Bible. Afterall, there were quite a few men that “walked with God” and had many wives.

        11. One could make that argument based on scripture. This is why it is impossible to take the bible and interpret it outside of the context of the believing community that has been living its message for 2000 years.
          Practically speaking, I don’t view polygamy as an attractive choice. The wives would be constantly sniping at each other and the husband would be stuck in the middle of it. Plus Coolidge effect would kick in anyway so it is not as appealing as it sounds.

        12. It definitely seems to read that he is imposing a more stringent rule that Moses. He is elevating the teaching to the original intent back in Genesis, which is an equally binding part of the Torah.
          Still, it is possible for honest people to hash bible verses all day and never come to any agreement. This is why I think that the bible needs to be read within the original community that produced it in the first place.

        13. Michael, my experience is that with more than one wife, life gets easier. They fight, I spank (c.f. Rev. 3:19). They get their emotional needs met with each other, not me. Their real desire is for my attention but they have to compete for it and the only way they can compete is by giving me what I want, by being sweet, feminine, submissive and sexually available. That, sir, is the opposite of what modern monogamous wives give their husbands unless they’re real unicorns.
          When you consider that the State cannot view polygyny as a marriage, the marital covenant defaults to an enforceable co-habitation contract. That means no divorce, no splitting the assets and no alimony. Further, with children by each wife, if one wants to leave her chances of getting custody are not very good because the courts frown on splitting up siblings and I still have an intact family whereas she would be doing the single mom thing. In other words, no cash and prizes and she’s looking at a child support order if she wants to leave. Polygyny reverses the incentives compared to monogamy, rewarding staying in the marriage and penalizing leaving the marriage.
          But, go talk to any of the guys who’ve been divorce-raped and tell them how much better off they were in a situation where their wife could take half (or more!) of their assets and their children and force them to pay every month for decades. Or maybe the guys suffering from sexual starvation because their (monogamous) wife refuses to have sex with them and there’s nothing they can do about it.
          One is insufficient,
          Two, and they fight.
          Three, they take sides,
          So four is just right.
          Is 4 wives a violation of Deut. 17:17? David had eight wives and God took credit for giving him multiple wives (and said if it wasn’t enough He’d have given him more!), so I’d say 4 wives is not a violation.

        14. The allowance of divorce and polygamy through Moses (God regulated sin) was probationary for the hardness of Israelites’ hearts. It’s not the creation mandate. It’s not natural law. Christ restored the original creation pattern…and elevated it to the dignity of a sacrament.
          Similarly the Levitical priesthood was not the original plan. It was originally father to son under natural law. Christ restored that pattern: God the Father to God the Son in the New Covenant (as described in Hebrews).

        16. Yes, the Church existed for centuries before the Canon of Scripture was more or less finalized and approved. Certainly, the Church existed even before all the documents of the New Testament had been compiled. The Church gives us the Scripture, the Church gives us the meaning of Scripture. Scripture is at the service of the Church, not vice-versa.

        17. I had this debate with Toad on another article.
          I believe that the Jews (some of the original Christians) were polygamous, and the Romans were monogamous, and such was one of the points of contention between them.
          Martin Luther opposed it personally, but found nothing in Scripture condemning it, and concluded that if a man practicing polygamy was convinced in his own mind that it was allowed in the Scripture, than it was okay.

        19. ”The Church gives us the Scripture, the Church gives us the meaning of Scripture.”
          That’s false. God gives us the meaning of scripture. The thing is truth is truth and any obfuscation does not change that. The scriptures speak for themselves. Heretics may try to change the meaning of the text to mean what they mean. Even reinterpret infallible church teaching to mean differently(As appears to be happening with the entryism) but the objective reality remains the same.
          One does not interpret words like the ”Sun” to mean different things to different people. It is a description of an objective reality that regardless exists.
          Likewise with scripture.

        20. Yes, God gives us the meaning of Scripture; the Church is Divine, the Bride of Christ, is deputized with Christ’s own authority, and speaks with the voice of the Holy Ghost. When the Church gives us the meaning of Scripture, she gives us God’s meaning.
          It should be patently obvious that the Scriptures do not speak for themselves. Many thousands of different opinions have been advanced on the Scriptures by people who were trying to follow God in good faith. I do not ascribe a malicious intent to every heretical opinion; people can make honest mistakes. But the Scriptures themselves tell us that they are difficult to understand, and that many go catastrophically awry:
          “…as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3:15-16
          There are times when the Scriptures speak fairly clearly, and this is one of them: the Scriptures themselves admit that the Scriptures are far from plain. And the fact remains that the Church predates Scripture, and regulated Christian life authoritatively even without it.

        21. The old testament or Tanakh predates the church. And the new testament is a followup to that and is a fulfillment of that.

        22. Of course, but I don’t see how that relates to the main point. The Tanakh itself makes reference to the New Covenant where the Law would not be written on tablets, but on the hearts of the people – i.e., where the whole of the Law and Prophets would be fulfilled from the heart, in the deeds of God’s people. And this is why, in the New Testament, we find the Church described as the “Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth,” we find the authority of the Church made supreme (“if they will not hear the Church, let them be to you as heathens and tax collectors”), we find the Church declared indefectible (“and that gates of Hell will not prevail against it”), we find the people exhorted to obey, not a book, but to “obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your soul.” We also find Jesus deputizing (the Greek word is “entellomai,” meaning to entrust a mission and the power to execute it) His apostles, granting them power to bind and loose, to forgive or retain sins, and especially setting Peter at the head with the power of the keys. In other words, the Old Testament itself looks forward to the Church, to a dispensation of men directly anointed and intimately connected to God, who themselves rule the Church, rather than a book, which really would be subject simply to everyone’s private interpretation if it itself were made an “authority.”
          Scripture itself nowhere commends the authority of Scripture in anything like the strong terms it uses to extol the authority of the Church. There are but a few places where knowledge of Scripture is commended as a good and profitable thing; but the Bible itself will not give you a direct command, or settle a dispute about the proper interpretation of a verse – a living authority does that. Even in the Old Testament, Christ exhorted the faithful to obey those who sat in Moses’ seat – i.e., the temple chiefs whose job it was to ensure the religious observance of the Jews. How much more, those who have been entrusted with Christ’s own priesthood, and have been made stewards of His mysteries?

      1. One could make a pretty good case using Dad Franky alone I’d bet.

        2. Pope Francis has not spoken infallibly on any topic.
          LOL! Yeah, Leftist fake science environmentalism is totally God.
          Vatican I. Ok, I agree with that. But we live in Vatican II days.

        3. Vatican I still stands today. The Pope only speaks infallible on faith and morals (not science!!!) when he speaks ex cathedra. Pope Francis has not spoken ex cathedra on anything.

        5. You would think so, but actually no. He has explicitly condemned homosexuality and Marxism, but the MSM has decided on a narrative and they’re sticking with it.

        9. I guess he should give up environmentalism then.

    4. Having once been a “Bible-believing” Protestant, I can now say with confidence that the teachings of the Church nowhere conflict with Scripture. If you will give me some examples, I will demonstrate this.
      But, GhostOfJefferson’s answer is also essentially correct. As St. Peter said, the epistles of St. Paul contain much, which is difficult and people twist them to their destruction. The Bible is hardly a self-explanatory book. The first Christians did not have a Bible, they only had the Church; the Bible is a good witness (an infallible witness), but the Church is infallible, too, and so we get the norm of Faith from her, including the proper interpretation of Scripture.

  4. I predict that this will be a thread of reasoned and civil discourse where all participants ponder the gravity and implications of those words they write, and those they read.
    I also predict that the sun will explode at 10 am EST on November 7th, 2015. Get your last minute parties going soon if you plan to have any.

    1. Your comment (keeping the sarcasm in context) could apply to almost any discussion on the internet.

    2. Too late Ghost, I’ve already sold everything I had and dedicated my life to God.

        1. Have you ever felt the need to sneeze and you just couldn’t? It’s nothing like that.

    4. Jefferson is one of the few internet commentators that I have never seen spout shit in anger. I’m guilty of it (rarely), but Jefferson seems to keep a level head even when faced with the most egregious stupidity.

  5. Femininity can be found in two basic teachings that children are indoctrinated with starting in kindergarten:
    -Violence is never the answer.
    -Violence never solves anything.
    Both of these assertions are the most ludicrous ideas in human history. When Scipio Africanus burned Carthage to the ground, he certainly solved the problem of the Carthaginians sending armies over the Alps. When the United States nuked two Jap cities, we certain solved the problem of Japanese expansion. In both cases, violence was the answer and solved the problem.

    1. Violence is indeed the answer, especially if the question is “What does V I O L E N C E spell?”

    2. And yet, femininity is not entirely unconnected to violence either…
      http://www.themystica.org/mythical-folk/articles/kali_ma.html
      “Kali Ma, called the “Dark Mother,” is the Hindu goddess of creation, preservation, and destruction. She is especially known in her Destroyer aspect, squatting over her dead consort, Shiva, devouring his entrails while her yoni sexually devours his lingam, penis. Kali, in this aspect is said to be “The hungry earth, which devours its own children and fattens on their corpses…”
      …
      As a Mother, Kali was called Treasure-House of Compassion (karuna), Giver of Life to the World, the Life of all lives. Despite the popular western belief that she is just a Goddess of destruction, she is the fount of every kind of love, which flows into the world through women, her agents on earth. Thus, it is said of a male worshipper of Kali, “bows down at the feet of women,” regarding them as his rightful teachers. ”

      1. I am speaking of justified violence, such as defeating totalitarianism. I not versed in Indian theology, but Kali’s violence doesn’t sound like it morally equates to bombing Berlin in WWII. (Note: I realize there are some white nationalists here who would have supported the Nazis over the Allies, but let’s assume Germany was wrong in this context, to avoid unnecessary quibbling about the Jews)

      2. The only place I’ve encountered Kali is in Tantric philosophy, which I am generally unfamiliar with, but which seems to have a strong left hand path element. They talk a lot about balance I think?

    3. Indeed, the non-aggression principle is a sign of social decay
      Logic and reasoning is playing fair, which never happens in large scale ideological conflict. Women and effeminate men will use a combination of appeals to emotion and morals to get what they want. The male equivalent is violence.

    4. “-Violence is never the answer.
      -Violence never solves anything.”
      I got bullied as a child and even as a teenager because I believed this shit.

      1. You have picked the right handle/icon, for one who has learned that lesson! God bless.

        1. Thank you very much.
          It’s incredible how he and his untrained Catholic paysans managed to win so much battles against hardened soldiers (Napoléon, in his memoires, could not stop wondering how it was even possible) … so much that these “Enlighteneds”from Paris tried to exterminate the entire region of Vendée in the name of “progress”.
          By the way I have some questions about self-mastering I would like to address you. Would it be possible that I email you ?

        2. Sure, go ahead. My handle is my gmail address, no spaces.
          Yes, this has always been “progress.” It is so popular and successful, that they’ve had to kill or terrorize or silence or suppress or lie to everyone, to get it!

  6. Always inspiring and great article!
    Speaking of the origins of words, think of the sources of words like “Testimony” or “Testify”. Given the basis of the word “Testosterone”, I’ll assume that “to testify” has a meaning beyond the usual context we see it in.

    1. The Romans would pledge a testicle to the fact that they were telling the truth. Hence, testimony.
      Decimate also was given to us by the Romans. If a legion lost a battle or did something really bad, 1 in 10 men in the legion would be run through and killed.

        1. Yep. They’d even grab their sack as they took the oath.

      1. With the exception of genitalia/genesis, those are actually false cognates. Morals and moron derive from different roots – mos in Latin (meaning custom, comportment) and μωρ in Greek (meaning silly, foolish). Aluminium comes from Latin alumen, meaning “bitter salt,” whereas illuminate comes from Latin in + lumino (to shine in, to enlighten). Genitalia and genesis are from different languages (Latin and Greek, respectively), but share the Indo-European root gen/gon, having to do with birth, begetting and coming to be.

        4. Oh, think nothing of it. 😉
          I actually did have to look up moron; I knew that it didn’t share a root (root stem is different), but I had no idea what the Greek root was. “mor” is a fairly uncommon sound combo in Greek.

    3. The “test-” in all these words comes from the original Latin testis, “witness” (noun).

    4. To properly testify or give testimony, does one generally put their balls on the table in doing so? 😉

    6. The origins are obscure. I’ve heard several stories. In the ancient world, some cultures swore oaths (between men, obviously) on the testicles. In the Bible there are euphemistic references to this, where men swear by placing their hands “under the thigh” of the other man.
      Also, it is said that after some scandals of women sneaking in to the games, where the men competed in the nude, the policy arose of requiring men to show their testes before entering the arena; folklore had it that this was also required before entering the courtroom, as only male testimony was trusted. This latter bit seems less certain (not that only male testimony was trusted, but the notion that men were required to whip ’em out in court).
      I have heard a proposed origin that wants “testis” (singular of testes”) to come from “tris” (three) and “stas” (standing), referring to a “third person standing by” (and hence a witness), with the testes being “witnesses” to manhood. This is somewhat unconvincing to me, though some proto-Indo-European specialists are apparently convinced by it.
      What is certain is that “testes” mean witnesses, and in a later age (15th century) “testicles” is first attested as “little witnesses” (literal translation of testiculi) to a man’s virility. The Greek word is parastatai, but whether this was used in the sense of “witnesses” (to virility), “supports” (to the penis) or “comrades” (partners in… the fray), or all three, is unknown.

    1. To crush your enemies, see them driven before you… and to hear the lamentation of their women!

        1. That comes after the battle. Ghengis always had carry out when he’d go raiding.

        2. Don’t like to be a pedant but google says that’s from Conan the Barbarian – the almost identical Ghenghis quote seems to be:
          “to crush your enemies, and see them fall at your feet – to take
          their horses and belongings, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
          That is the best life.”

      4. Always good to hear the classics. Of course, I assume every knows that was coming from the words of Genghis Kanh, not the former governor of California.
        These days, you can never tell.

        3. You’re actually not far wrong, as I understand it, in Christianity evil is associated with diminishment, When you do something wicked you make yourself less so, less “you”.

        4. You said you wanted to know a decision God Made, so I said Existence, I didn’t say Existence made anyone Good.

        5. Interesting. But then the very wish and idea to diminish oneself is indeed a part of the self and possibly necessary as an experience. To know where not to go. Also, it is presumptuous to assume that all people are equal in that following the same rules will make them all equally happy.
          I know that god loves me no matter what I do or who I become. That, for me, is the ultimate relationship with god.

        7. Again, you’re much closer to Christianity than you think. The Narrow Path has an incredible diversity of what being a saint looks like. There are also fewer rules than is commonly assumed, the idea is that there are a few things that aren’t any good for anyone at any time. Where we deviate is that, although God will always love you, He allows you to separate yourself from Him, if you so choose. He didn’t give us commandments because He hates us, He gave them so we don’t hurt ourselves.

        8. He allows you to separate yourself from Him

          True. I was separated most of my life.
          My point is that even if I choose to disobey the commandments, that does not constitute a separation from god. Only shame in his gaze would achieve that, so to speak.
          So I do not believe that god gave us commandments. I believe that they are the conclusion of men. Whose wisdom is challengeable. And that changes the whole ball game.

        9. Indeed, but to be counter-intuitive, perhaps the Divine made existence of which we are a conscious part, not to make us necessarily happy, but, to make us complete and perfect in the eventual scheme of things. What we experience as suffering and pain are integral parts of this. We can learn and develop from these states are we can become these states without end, which is a hell of our own making. Ultimately the Divine made us free to choose our own destiny, there’s no God to blame or praise, our efforts are our own and these either lead us towards Him or back towards the Hall of Created Mirrors where we see shadows among the shadows, like John Dee once said to Queen Elizabeth the First, where ” we see things we think are real, but are in facts mere shadows that hold us wrongly in their grasp”.

        10. I do not understand the metaphor with the mirrors, but I fully agree about the completeness part. People use to say ‘Life is XX’. But it is not. Life is everything you know and remember; everything you do, did and can think of doing; everything you felt or can imagine feeling; every concept your memory and being is able to grasp. All these are parts of life. If they were not, we would be unable to identify them. Life can not be identified through a part of life, rather it has to be soaked up in its entirety. Likewise, god can not be identified through a golden lamb, to use a classical example as well.

        11. True. It’s also anything you can imagine. Memory, thinking, feeling, understanding, grasping and real being are all parts of the divine mundus imaginalis of which we are but fragments, elements, droplets, like leafs on a tree. However, the parts make the whole and some parts much more than other parts, Tom.

        13. Or the correct tree? The tree of life is not the tree of knowledge. Life is all about discerning which is which.

        14. That is a bit abstract for my tastes. Mind to elaborate?
          By the way, I would love to read your opinion on my newest article, if you find the time.

        15. There is actually a great deal of truth to this. Participation in existence is participation in the Good.

        16. Love is one thing; approval, friendship, similitude, comradeship – God also wishes these things for us. Even the damned are loved.

        17. Yeah. But it is an interesting thing to be a damned, but loved one. The love makes it tolerable. And someone needs to explore these areas of human experience, after all.

        18. Sin is a calamity precisely because it is the tension of a participant in Existence desiring not to participate in existence. Hell itself is contained in this tension.
          One cannot be separated from God, from Being, in a certain sense; in another sense, one can be separate from God in one’s will and appetites, and tear himself in twain.

        19. Ah. That is very well said, actually. Denial of existence, living in a dream world.
          Then again, even a dream world is something that existence allows within itself, so I would not call that godless in any way. Rather simply painful and undesirable. I know what I am talking about; I have wandered the lands of madness for a long time, in one way or another.

        20. The metaphor of the two trees relates to the choices we make that are decisions that relate to satisfying one’s immediate desires or those that postpone those impulses for something else. However, at times, the trees change their leaves and what one tree was in the past appears different in a new season. This is what I mean by discernment. However, at certain times, the garden of sensuous delights is indeed the place of the tree of life, but, in another season it’s the garden where the tree of knowledge grows. Confused? Well, don’t worry, that’s part of it. Remember, abstraction is only ever a way of ordering reality towards a certain perspective. You’re intelligent, original, and extremely honest in your ways, so you’ll understand this, even when you think you don’t.

    3. It’s actually a very “good” (or maybe “important”) question that cannot seriously be answered in a comment section of an internet article. Let’s assume you are 28 years old. A man of depth and knowledge I would hope would have spent 10-12 years studying that question. Let’s assume your are 88 years old. A man of depth and knowledge I would hope would have spent 70-72 years studying that question. I believe it’s a lifelong endeavor. The Holy Bible is my guidepost though for certain.

      1. I think it is just a word. Right and wrong comes down to making decisions. Right stands for the decisions one has learned yield the best outcome. It also fits with what you say about lifelong learning. Sharpening the intuition to keep making the best decisions in every circumstance. It sounds a bit cold and un-spiritual the way I write it now, but I trust you to understand what I mean. In the end, the goal of morals is nothing but that.
        Personally, I despise Christianity. That is, what I know of it. I only read a tiny shred of the bible and my preconception is that it is a book of rules fit for a bureaucracy. Most Christians I come to dispute with on the internet are arrogant and only acknowledge Jesus as a way to god. When I tell them that I am with god, they tell me I can not be, because I am not Christian. There are exceptions, though, and I can respect those who choose Christianity as their way to foster their relationship with god. I do not think it is a good way, but hey, whatever works.

        1. Good is the standard, by which you judge the meaning of “better” and “best” (and “worse” and “worst”). Without such a standard, such relative categories are meaningless.

        2. Correct. But those words only can have meaning in relation to a goal or purpose. If my purpose is to die a miserable death in agony, I would have different standards than if I wanted to become the happiest man on earth.
          Of course, that exaggeration banalizes my idea. My point is rather: It takes different paths to reach different goals. To propose one path that goes everywhere is ridiculous, to say the least.

        3. That is true. I come from the perspective that realizes God Himself is the teleological cause of all creation. Therefore, the goal at which I think every man must inevitably aim, is God Himself; and thus He Himself is the standard by which the relatives are measured. A man can set other goals for himself, but these will prove futile.

        4. I disagree, but I understand the appeal in some ways. I sometimes yearn to become whole with the entire universe, which for me represents god. I think that one will experience this after death anyway.

        5. I share your anger about arrogant Christians. While you can count me among the people who believe “Jesus is the only way to God” the conduct of many so-called Christians really upsets me and does great damage to the cause of Christ. I can promise you, Jesus Christ was neither a Republican, nor an American. He was a 1st century Jew living in Palestine. The question I would pose to you is why do we know the name of a 1st century Jew who lived in Palestine? To put it another way, what event would cause 12 fisherman (you might know them as the disciples) to so radically change their lives? And in turn, change the lives of so many people who heard what they had to say? If your heart or soul ever sought to answer questions about your purpose in life, the meaning of existence, etc., etc., I would encourage you to study the historical Jesus. In the same way you might want to learn about a man named George Washington, or Charlemagne, or Julius Cesar, ask yourself, which one of these four men is the most important to today’s society? and to your own everyday life?

        6. Thanks.
          You know what, I actually was having a somewhat related thought. The thought was why the image of Jesus does indeed make me feel good. Why it seems to be so deep buried in my consciousness. My usual answer would be that it is just through exposure, but I do not feel the same way about Mohammed or others. When I visited church earlier this year and heard the little girls voices hall through the building, I could not deny feeling unspeakably elated, although I could not quite let myself feel it back then. Also, the thought that Jesus might be god in person does make me feel in a very strange way.
          On the other hand, I tried to have a conversation with that image of Jesus in my head and realized that all he has to tell me is what I have heard Christians say. When I asked something that I had not heard before myself, he had no answer. That would speak for my theory of exposure.
          I may someday be intrigued enough to study about Jesus indeed. Right now, I am not.
          It is an interesting topic. Let me ask you one thing, which I yet fail to understand: What can Christianity and/or Jesus add to my life that I do not already have? I was on an acid trip and experienced something one may call ‘rebirth’ and since then, I feel a calming sensation on my head that helps me face fears and love myself. I am pretty convinced it is the touch of god. It has helped me face my demons through meditation and accept myself in ways I did not think possible before. It is indeed a bit like a father. It is a great thing. What more could I want?

        7. To answer your question, I’m going to assume you are not referring to the assurance that comes from knowing you have a place in God’s Kingdom and everlasting or eternal life. Understand though, that is a big part of my answer.
          What I think you are looking for is this: If you believe (as I do), that you are created by God, then the purpose of my life is to give God pleasure. How do I give God pleasure? By loving others. In the Bible, there are two stories in which God openly says something profoundly wonderful to a person. The first is in the book of Isaiah where God tells the prophet “Well done, good and faithful servant.” And another at Jesus’ baptism: “This is my Son, with whom I am well pleased.”
          Nothing would give me more pleasure than to know that the God of the Universe is pleased with the life I have led. While you do not have to be a Christian to live a life in service to others, you do need to be a Christian to live a life in service to God. While Jews and Muslims believe they are living a life in service to God, the Christian God includes Jesus Christ.

        8. Interesting. I like loving others, but it is something I am not very good at yet.
          How do you know that Christianity is the correct choice? How would you convince a Muslim that his way is wrong? Do you think that a Muslim lacks the conviction of having a place in god’s kingdom, as you say it?

        9. (Don’t think that because I am a Christian that I am good at loving others either. That is not the test of a Christian.) How do I know that Christianity is the right choice? It goes back to the question who is Jesus Christ? Are the stories in the Bible true? Was there a man, who was the son of a carpenter, who claimed to be the son of God, go around the countryside in 1st century Palestine saying some nice things and healing people, then get executed by the local government, get buried, and then three days later appear to his followers and say to them “see, I really am the son of God.” If that is a true story, then Jesus is not only the son of God, but He is God. That makes Jesus different than Moses or Mohammed (or Confucious or Buddha). There have been other men who have claimed to be God. Do you remember David Koresh? He claimed to be god, he was killed by the local government, but he did not come back to life three days later. If the stories in the Bible about Jesus are true, then all other questions become rather easy to answer.

        10. Fair enough. Presuming that he was actually dead, of course. Then what convinced you that the stories are indeed true? Reading the Bible?
          One more thing that just came to me regarding the wonderful things god said in the Bible. I find it humiliating to suck up to god and having to be his servant. What makes the idea appealing to you? It may be of interest here that I grew up without a father and carry around a deep rage for my lost youth and suffering. So from my perspective, the relationship equates to a distant and emotionally unavailable father who constantly demands obedience to show even the slightest affection. The idea revulses me.

        11. What convinced me? The disciples/fisherman. Reading the book of Acts, these are men who did not seek to create a new religion. They did not seek fame or fortune. Many of them lost their life in a violent way. Why would they do that? They saw for themselves that Jesus died and then rose again. It’s also important to remember that Christians were executed for hundreds of years before Christianity became an accepted religion.
          As for whether Jesus really was dead, you would have to believe that the Romans were inept at executing people, and they were not. For the same reason that today, we can be assured that when the government tries to execute someone, that they are successful in doing just that.
          As for what makes the idea appealing to me, that is a tougher question given our differing life experiences. It’s a question of what is true. If the stories are true, then my own personal experience (or yours for that matter) is irrelevant. Your experiences have made you the man you are today. But no matter who you are, the Story (death and resurrection) remains the same.

        12. Well, he could have had a brother or someone who looked similar die or rise instead of him. Or survived by accident; an efficacy in killing is different from an absolute efficacy in killing. But I will be better off reading the sources about that.
          I differ with you about the personal experiences. Here is my intuitive reasoning: If god allowed me to live the life I am living and if he allows me to question Christianity without withdrawing his love and if the Jesus in my mind does not respect me unconditionally as god does and if Jesus is supposed to be god, there is a logical inconsistency. If god is with me, but Jesus is not, Jesus can not be god.
          Another angle: If god demands obedience and I am supposed to be free to obey him, yet find myself unable to do so without denying my nature, experiences and emotions, there is another logical inconsistency. It would mean that I am unable to become a Christian although it is the ‘right’ thing to do. It would mean that god wants me to be damned, because god made me the way I am including all my emotions that I can not deny. But that bites itself with the fact that god does love me.
          One more: In my mind, god is everything. If god is everything, god can not be represented to a part of everything. Since Jesus is only a part of everything, god can impossibly be Jesus. It seems like a distraction or a red herring. Like a golden lamb.
          All this, in my mind, points to an impossibility of Jesus being god. I do not doubt Jesus being a son of god, though, as I think we all are.
          You may call my reliance on my own intuition arrogant in itself, but then: What else is there to rely on? The only way I could become a Christian right now is through self-denial. If that is what god wants me to do, I do not see a point in living at all, as it would – in an extrapolated sense – mean that potentially everyone may be required to deny his self. Thus even if everyone was capable of love, nobody would be able to receive it, as it is only the self that can receive love. Life would become an act for god’s pleasure; an act that only he can enjoy. God was free to create me in any thinkable way and he created me in a way that makes me doubt Christianity. Since it is impossible for me to deny these doubts, it is impossible for me to obey him if he is a Christian god; thus, since god knows everything, he can impossibly expect nor want me to obey him. Which bears the question why he created me at all. In the least, it implies that my path is not one of obedience and not meant to be. Which bites itself with any universal claim that obedience is wished by god, though, as each person would have to search his own feelings to choose whether obedience is his path. That would imply a favoritism on the side of god: To create the obedient and the disobedient. But that begs the question: Why would god create the disobedient at all, if he did not find them to have an equally important purpose in his creation?

        13. I am sorry to say we may be at the end of our discussion. You have asked some excellent questions that are beyond an internet comment section. In part, you are describing the concept of “predestination” vs. the concept of “free will.” You also want to discuss the very nature of God. I wish I could answer these questions in this forum, but the answers your are seeking are written in many books and only the most learned of men can answer them for you. And it is my hope and prayer that someday you will find someone you trust who knows these answers. That’s the only way these answers will be meaningful to you. I must also confess my own limitations to your questions as even if we were meeting in real life over a drink, my own ability to answer these questions will be limited. I have enjoyed our conversation and I look forward to seeing you out there some more. I will leave you with one more Bible verse from Matthew 7:7: “Ask and it will be given to you, seek and you will find, knock and the door shall be opened for you.” (Lance’s memory version). What it means is keep asking your questions, and I trust God will give you your answers.

        5. There alot of things in a man’s life that are not interesting, but he has to deal with it. Prophet? You need G-d. If not, you will invent one or make yourself equivelent to one. Get over yourself mate.

        7. Describe God in your terms. If you were a christian, you would know why you needed Jesus. But feel free to flog that dead jew from Nazareth until you hearts content.

        8. I am not a particular hater of Jesus. In fact, during my Ayahuasca ceremony, I summoned his image to my great relief. But I have god even without him now. It is like a hand caressing my forehead and giving love and confidence.

        9. Sorry Tom. That is pagan bullshit., not christianity. I cannot help you, but perhaps the author of this post can.

        12. You annoy me. Believe what you want and let me do the same. You are one of the Christians that add nothing to my relationship with god, but see it as a justification to make bold claims and shame me. Luckily, some of you guys are more open-minded. Else I would have to conclude you are all idiots.

        13. I am amused that I annoy you, but I admit that without pride or Intention. However I observe thoughout all your posts at ROK that I have bothered to read, you always make it a revolving theme about you.
          I repeat; Get over yourself mate. Let go.

        14. Why is that a problem? I am in a phase of my life where I seek assistance and clarification. I have a lot of questions.
          Let go of what, exactly? Myself? What else is there in life than your self? Please explain what you mean.
          Besides, I doubt you are a psychologist. Telling me yo let go withour understanding of my situation is quite arrogant.

    1. If a tree fell in a forest where you were the only one who witnessed it would your one hand clapping sound like it falling?

      1. Does the moon only exist when I look at it. Einstein and Berkeley were never on the same plane. I’m still not sure which one is correct, if either?

  11. Great article. I think Evola pointed out certain cults in history where it was reversed, and women were the theologians, representing a ‘lunar’ type of spirituality which was degenerate. Women are supposed to be silent in the churches for a reason.

    1. Indeed. Men represent both headship and the principle of sacrifice. As women have the preeminence in earthly parenthood, bearing the child within them and nourishing it, men have the preeminence of spiritual fatherhood, and are the only sex capable of the priesthood.

        3. One mead can be very different from the next. My first batch was way, way, too sweet. My second was very dry. I’m aiming for something between the two; I’ve also added prickly pear cactus fruit, which makes it look like a glorious sunset in the glass.

        5. Yes, that is by definition what it is made of. If it ain’t honey, it ain’t mead! If you add herbs and fruit, there are different names for it. Mead with herbs is called metheglin; with fruit it is called melomel. So, technically, I have made melomel. If you ferment with wine, you get a mead/wine mixture called pyment. Good stuff!

        7. It’s good stuff! My best buddy soldiered up a smile and some tolerance for my first two beer-brewing experiments (I don’t like hops, both for the taste and for what they do to the male body, so I tried hopless experiments at brewing beer).
          But, he reminds me from time to time that the mead is the only thing I’ve brewed which is actually good.

      2. Have you taken vows of celibacy? Has it been difficult to deny the sexual urges of your body?
        I ask because for the past 3 months I have ceased all sexual activity and I used to masterbate and look at porn regurlarly like most men.
        This is the first time in my life where this has happened. I have lived like a hedonist before but now it makes me sick to imagine these modern women and all the random dicks that have been inside their bodies.
        I still have a sex drive though and sometimes I feel I am losing my mind. The problem is I would rather have a chaste woman and impregnate her.
        Since this isn’t likely or even wise in today’s world I feel quite estranged from the masses.
        Not only that, I feel an antagonism towards others for being so weak and slaves to their biology like unthinking animals. Does an animal deserve my respect or reverence? Absolutely not.
        I eat the flesh of other animals and I even have more respect for them because they don’t know any better than to be beasts. The human is supposed to be made in the image of God yet most act like drooling monkeys squatting and flicking their junk.
        I don’t feel so much as special or better than anyone per se I just feel a furious anger that I have trouble hiding.

        1. Same here. By the end of december I would have done my first year of full chastity. Never give up.

        3. It’s been since I’m 18 that I’m trying (i’m 23).
          At the beginning it was hard, now I know all the tricks it uses to controls your brain.
          Got through it by turning my life upside down, starting new activities and I don’t think I would be able to master myself that much without having recently decided to try to follow the religious principles that my medieval ancesters used to live by.
          I can entirely relate to what you wrote.
          Don’t ever give up, don’t let others fool you : mastering yourself is the manliest thing you can do.

        4. Yes, I have vowed celibacy and poverty; as far as obedience goes, it is a dangerous thing in our time. I take counsel from some men I trust, and I strive very seriously never to make excuses, but always to cleave to those practices and doctrines which the legitimate authority of the Church has approved.
          You are hitting upon the very point of this article. This is why men in the past regarded the hedonistic life as a degenerate and effeminate one. Men, having attained mastery over themselves, saw the pitiable state of men mastered by their urges. It is a literally sub-human and unmanly way to live. Those of us who have managed to breathe the clean air, even for a little while, look on the lower path with real disdain. It is why the spiritual and material rulers of our society seek to drown everyone in pleasures and distractions. Have you ever heard of a cow turning on its master? They want us to be spiritual and psychological cattle.
          But, we have to be on our guard against pride. When we become proud of our virtues, rather than regarding ourselves as having done only what was expected, God often casts us down. God permitted me to struggle with a period of failures in chastity some time ago, precisely as a punishment because I had grown so self-satisfied about it. Ultimately we do good only by cleaving to the Good; self-satisfaction is worse than to struggle with unchastity. We should take the same attitude towards such pride as we do towards lust itself – it, too, is unworthy of a man. But if there is no question of personal pride and self-satisfaction, your attitude of anger – fury, even – towards the fact that men have been reduced to “squatting and flicking their junk” is exactly the right attitude to have. God and the blessed spirits burn with such anger at these sins of men, since men are indeed called to a degree of spiritual excellence and contemplation, like themselves. It is also why, even though sins of the spirit are more serious, the devils delight in dragging us down with the sins of impurity and gluttony. They detest mankind, and they enjoy seeing us degraded. If we cannot be better than the Pharisees, as our Lord commanded, let us at least strive to be better than the bonobos.
          Generally I do not struggle with the normal urges of the flesh, anymore. Monsieur de Charette was right, to point out that for many men the trick is to develop an whole set of new habits and tricks, a new schedule, a new way of handling down time, etc. I still remember the first year I spent without any sins against chastity; I realized that it was entirely possible, and there was no reason why lust should dominate a man. That was also the year I started lifting, started really mastering my intellectual work, etc., so it also confirmed for me that this was a masculine way of life. I find that lust only attacks me from a stealthy position, these days – those moments where one is half-awake, or in a period of dejection or physical exhaustion (if I come down with a cold or the flu, something that leaves my mind cloudy and my body lethargic). Even if there’s no danger of falling in the moment, one can get a burr in the brain that will gnaw at one’s thoughts for hours, at such times. The main thing is never to admit that first thought when it knocks at the door of our minds. I think it was St. Mark the Ascetic, who said: “If your thought had not run ahead, your deed would not have followed.” The first step to avoid sinning, is not to indulge the thought of sinning!

        5. Thank you for the encouragement. It does help to know there are other men going through and have gone through what I am dealing with.
          I don’t think I could take an actual vow of celibacy. What triggered this whole path for me was getting out of a 3 yr relationship with a girl about 6 mos ago.
          I should have ended it much sooner because she was highly insecure and the relationship just went down hill after our first big fight. She cried and begged and went hystetical because I was trying to kick her out. I eventually crumbled and let her stay but I only grew to resent her. I did treat her with indifference and completely neglected her towards the end. I got lazy and stagnated with her. Stopped working out and was doing nothing productive whatsoever.
          She was madly in love with me the first year and looking back she acted like a little child around me in a way that I found endearing if not banal.
          When it ended I knew it needed to happen and 3 days later I slept with a girl she used to be friends with. That’s when I felt probably the lowest I have felt in a long time. Just dirty and it began to hit me all the emotions I had for my ex.
          It still haunts me to this day and I don’t know why. Sometimes I have dreams that just torment me and put me in a horrible emotional state all day. I simply don’t think I was built to live the life of the hedonist.
          Basically my life did a 360 in a short period of time. I cut out most all distractions, started lifting again and now I’m working about 60 hours a week.
          I desire to have a family but I am looking at a barren wasteland. Something seems missing but I wonder if I have an unrealistic view of reality because I do know female nature and we simply don’t have the ability to keep a woman in check(legally).
          This is vexing and unnatural to me. Show me any woman in the world, I could kill her with my bare hands with little effort. I should never be forced to abide by their fickle whims.
          I have all this focus and energy but saving up money and even working out, training in my martial arts and working a job where I am around that lifestyle all the time isn’t enough to make me feel like I’m going in any direction that I’m extremely passionate and convicted about.
          Just a ship lost in a black sea with a broken rudder.

        6. You are strong for your age. I was kind of celibate for my 21st through 26th yrs, but I still failed with porn.
          What made you choose to live this life….the hard life?
          Unless you are a very small percentile of men you will desire children one day and that is disheartening for me considering our options.
          It didnt hit me till this year and I am 35.
          I like the ways of our ancestors too and I will never forget about their deeds.

        8. I think many men feel as you do. My main reasons for becoming a monk were positive; but whatever temptation there was to marry and have the “normal” life, were blunted by the factors you mention – i.e., the fact that society’s usual traditions for keeping women in their proper place, have been abandoned.
          Women flourish under male leadership, and even women have always recognized this. Our Lady surpasses every creature, whether heavenly or earthly, in beauty, wisdom, glory, excellence and power. Yet when Her Son was on the Cross, He commended Her to His best friend’s care. St. Hildegard of Bingen mentioned that women attained their true potential when protected and guided by men. A woman is meant to have an head, for she represents the creation, and God is represented by men. As men must be subject to their Maker, women must be subject to their head.
          We are learning why society always upheld this principle, for we see that its negation, really, stands at the center of the rot. The real impetus was initiated by the Protestant revolution, but it did not enter the full-blown crisis phase, until women were “emancipated” and granted the vote. Their irrational inclusivity has driven all the dyscivic vices of modernity. Until men are able to subordinate women, and to exclude effeminate men from positions of influence, we will continue to suffer under this reign of degeneracy.
          It is my hope that many men, finding themselves in this position, will perhaps take thought as to the whole process of decay, and repent. I think many men are, as you say, a ship without a rudder, lost in a sea of confusion. I believe the authentic, Catholic Faith is the Truth, whole and entire, and I hope to help men find it. An army of men, eyes open to the problems of modernity, holding the fire and purpose of the Faith in their hearts… it would be an unstoppable force. Perhaps it is a pipe dream, to think that many men are in a prime position for such a conversion, and thus to begin such a revolution. But I have faith in God, and believe that such a thing is possible, perhaps even that the times are ripe for it….

        9. I would join the Catholic Church in an instant if,
          All liberals expelled from the church.
          All Freemasons were expelled from the church.
          Vatican II repudiated.
          Militant orders were restored and new crusades were launched against Islam and modernity.

        10. Well, though it’s opening a can of worms to say it, I’ll say it.
          The thing operating out of the Vatican is no longer the Catholic Church. Scripture, and numerous apparitions of our Lady in recent centuries, long predicted this – the great Apostasy, the great falling away. At Fatima, our Lady gave us a warning with a “do not open until 1960” right on the lid of it: it doesn’t take a genius to figure out what she was warning us against, in hindsight. By giving us the date, she ensured we would understand at least a minimum of what we need to know, even if John XXIII (and every subsequent “pope”) refused to publish it.
          It is a sine qua non of Catholicism that you must, ceteris paribus, be in communion with the pope; it is also a sine qua non of Catholicism, that a public heretic (even a merely “material,” i.e., “innocent” heretic) cannot be pope. Every “pope” since John XXIII has been a manifest, public heretic (with the possible exception of John Paul I, since his pontificate lasted a mere matter of days until his rather suspicious death) – i.e., I think a reasonable man could easily conclude that there has been no pope since the time of Pius XII. Those Catholics who acknowledge that none of the recent pretenders to the papacy have a legitimate claim to hold it, are called sedevacantists.
          Many who consider themselves Catholics, and who, to be fair, try to keep the Faith as well as they know, think sedevacantists are making some very serious judgments, and running a great risk for making them. To them I would say, that those who stay with Rome are also making some very serious judgments, and running a great risk for making them. The principles of our Faith condemn heresy even more seriously than they condemn disobedience, and the choice we all must make in our days involves these matters intimately. Nobody should assume that checking the “obedience” box every time, or yielding obedience to every man calling himself “papa,” is always the safe course. The infallible Magisterium of the Church has told us that we must avoid all heretics; St. Robert Bellarmine, all of Church history, Bd. Pius IX and the Relator at the Infallible First Vatican Council, all confirmed that a) there could be an heretical pope, and b) the faithful would have an obligation to reject such a man. Now, amongst the things solemnly defined by the Magisterium are that there is no such thing as abstract “rights” (to free exercise of religion, the press, speech, etc.) rooted in “human dignity” (there is only what is Right, rooted in transcendent moral Truth), and that “no pastor whomsoever of the Churches” may so much as *say* that “the received and customary rites of the Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other, new ones.” The first is the solemn teaching of Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors, as well as the universal, ordinary magisterium; the latter is taught by a solemn definition of Trent, and also by the universal, ordinary magisterium. To these I could add others, but this will suffice at the present for the point.
          That point, is that in modernity a group of men, adhering to papal claimants who had long been suspect of heresy and membership in forbidden movements and societies (meaning John XXIII and Paul VI), chose to re-write every Sacramental Rite of the Catholic Church – not just the Mass (which would be heresy enough), but EVERY RITE for EVERY SACRAMENT, and even the usual rites for mere blessings! They began to teach the humanist ideas condemned by the Church – Benedict XVI plainly admitted that Gaudium et Spes (a Vatican II document) was intended to contradict a dogmatic document of Pius IX, which itself expressed the certain teaching of the Church (the Syllabus). They also rewrote the Code of Canon Law and drafted a new Catechism to thoroughly inculcate these errors, because if the Church had continued to use her traditional rites, laws, customs and catechisms, the faithful could never have absorbed such heretical ideas. Horrifically, John Paul II’s Code of Canon Law contains precepts that are contrary to Divine Law; the Apostolic Tradition tells us that the Church cannot make such catastrophic errors in her universal, ordinary magisterium, which is certainly represented by the liturgical texts, catechisms, Code of Canon Law, etc. This state of affairs provokes a choice: every Catholic must choose whether these errors are serious, and whether the authentic magisterium of the Church could possibly promote them so consistently while still deserving to be called the Church’s authentic magisterium.
          We all have been forced to make a judgment. Some are making the judgment that it is safer to stay with Rome, no matter what; they will face God’s judgment for that decision, and He will examine both the correctness of it, their motives for it, and their degree of responsibility for choosing well or ill (i.e., how well they informed their consciences, made an effort to understand the Church’s authentic teaching on heresy, and how to respond to heretical opinions in the hierarchy, from approved sources before the controversy began, etc.). Likewise, God will judge sedevacantists for the choice they made, along exactly the same lines. After a year of really looking into the magisterial teaching on what to do about heresy in the hierarchy (and especially the papacy), I am convinced that sedevacantists are the ones who uphold the authentic teaching and discipline of the Church in light of present circumstances. Some speak as though only sedevacantists are taking a risk and making judgments. But the evil of the times has forced us all to make a judgment. I know that almost all who are striving to be faithful, whether on the conciliarist or the sedevacantist side, are acting in good faith with a sincere desire to please God and to remain faithful. May He take pity upon us all, who desire only Him and groan in our present confusion and disarray.
          But the point, is that if you want to practice the Catholic Faith without the modernist heresy, you are able to do so. The folk, whom I believe to represent the actual Catholic Church – i.e., the various traditionalist groups operating without Rome’s approval at present – do all the things you say except for launching military crusades. It is not practical at this time; you need some kind of political standing and power, and we do not have it. Otherwise, the Catholic Faith is still there, though during this period of time “the Church shall be in eclipse,” as the seer, St. Lucia of Fatima, said.
          Forgive the long reply.

        11. Thanks for the info and I’ve heard the same from other devout Catholics that since Vatican II the popes are anti popes. Also since they changed the sacraments that taking them now officially is pointless.
          I know a family of 13 that rejected their nominal church and moved out of the USA to a much smaller less developed country just to escape the madness of modernity.
          The problem for me isn’t don’t just want to run away. I want to stand and fight. Which is why Christian military orders need to be restored.
          All these good men who see all this wrongdoing sitting back and accepting their fate in an effeminate resignation. Not something I’m keen on. Nor is it something I believe God will be too kind on when they reach their judgement.
          What can the modern man say to his God when standing before Him and His glory He asks…”All of this evil in the world. Child murder, sanctification of degeneracy in My own house, homosexuality praised in My name and you did NOTHING?”
          I don’t ever want to be in that position.

        12. I have reached the exact same conclusion. God will blame us, who said and did nothing. I don’t want to say too much about it, but I work with a group of Catholic men who understand this well. We all have our roles to play; I am preparing for the priesthood, and hope to bless their rifles, give them shrift and counsel, when the time is ripe.

        13. Amen. I will find and join such groups of men. Have you been to this blog?
          Thisblogisdangerous.com

        14. learn spanish and head to latin america. choose one of the more devout countries, like maybe honduras or guatemala. not sure if you’re catholic or not, but regardless, go to church and be patient. lots of good, chaste girls in church in central america. be patient, give it some time, and you should be able to meet one who is good wife material. central america is where i found my unicorn. i’m not even catholic, but we were able to get married in the church after jumping through some hoops to get her priest’s and bishop’s approval. just found out she’s pregnant too, and i’m very happy about it.

        17. God bless you both. Please, consider converting! Catholic customs and practices enrich family life in so many ways.

        19. The tragedy in all this is that the average Catholic has to determine where the truth is. He can’t simply decide he is Catholic and go to the local church. He has to discern whether Catholicism is best represented by Rome or by the sedevacantists and sspx and other groups. Right now I am on the side of Rome and have some leanings toward the Orthodox Church. It is a tragedy that the truth has become so relative that we must question those who should have been a sure guide.
          The article was also very good. It is good to see the recognition that theology is a practical exercise. Modern Catholicism and Christianity in general seems to interpret it is a purely a theoretical and intellectual pursuit that is divorced from practice. But that isn’t the case for all the saints and desert fathers.

        20. “Catholic customs and practices enrich family life in so many ways.”
          agreed. my impression of the RCC was pretty negative before i started going to mass with my wife when we were dating, but there are a lot of good people in her congregation and they made an excellent impression.
          however, it seems to me that the church is very different in the US from what i saw in central america, far more liberal and infected with the same strain of feminism you see in pretty much all american churches in 2015. for example, in one of our pre-marriage interviews, my wife’s priest told her “remember when you go to the US that feminism is the work of satan and is not a good basis for family life.” i highly doubt a priest could get away with saying that in the US.
          i’m actually trying to find a way to settle down in central america permanently with her and one reason is the (as i perceive it) more pure version of the church there. but even with the central american version of the church, there are too many things i don’t believe for me to convert. clerical celibacy is one of the main things. i’ve read de humanae vitae and while it’s very logical, it’s based on flawed logic and, it seems obvious to me, clerical sexual frustration. the idea that lifelong celibacy brings one closer to god seems like an obvious greco-roman heresy to me (think oracles and vestal virgins) with little basis in the bible, aside from a few vague passages from paul that could possibly be interpreted that way.
          none of this is meant to be disrespectful to the church. i hold it in high regard, especially because it provided me with a good wife, and that’s not an easy thing to find nowadays.

        21. Sounds like you’re living the dream. I told one of my buddies (a Puerto Rican) that if all else fails, I’m going to move to South America and marry a young virgin who’s Catholic.

        23. Brother Moner
          What is your opinion of the Siri Thesis?
          And Fr Feeney’s views on EENS?

        24. In brief:
          The Siri Thesis is possible, but as there is no real, substantive proof, it cannot be the basis of conscientious, Catholic action. I also have difficulties with the idea of a “secret pope,” and would need to learn more about the canonical validity of a clandestine administration of the Church.
          Feeney is out of step with the traditional doctrine of the Church; like most heretics, he isolates and over-emphasizes a single doctrine of the Church, in such a way as to destroy all the nuance of the Church’s teaching. Many Fathers, as well as Aquinas and the Doctors, agree explicitly that sin is remitted through perfect charity and contrition, and that the desire for reconciliation to the Church is always implicit in this; so long as the person is unable to reconcile to the Church, either through invincible ignorance or through being stranded on a desert island (etc.), God honors the intent. This is also in accord with the dictum of St. Augustine, espousing the Church’s doctrine, that “sin (and vice) is in the will.” God does not impute sin to persons who have no malice of will; God imputes virtue to those who will the good but are truly impeted from acting fully upon it. Bd. Pius IX himself (and other pontiffs) affirmed more than once in encyclical letters that the Catholic religion admitted the possibility of the salvation of those in invincible ignorance or other, insuperable inaccessibility to the Church, on grounds of charity, contrition and desire of membership in the Church (i.e., desire of baptism and/or confession).
          Feeneyites should be ashamed of the way they reject the Patristic consensus, the consensus of the Doctors and theologians, and even statements of the Supreme Pontiffs in their encyclicals on this topic. Like many Conciliar types, they are happy to pick and choose from authoritative documents, and to quibble over the authoritativeness of this or that document in isolation from the whole Tradition. For example, the Holy Office replied to their error and explained the Church’s Tradition on what Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is; their attitude, was that the reply of the Holy Office was not issued in an official enough way to “count.” But the whole point, is not that the statement of the Holy Office was authoritative enough or valid enough, but that the Ordinary Magisterium, the Consensus of the Fathers and Doctors, etc., which the document cites, are already authoritative enough on their own, even if the Holy Office had never issued any response at all. So, fine: for the sake of argument, let us act as though the response of the Holy Office amounts to nothing, or even that it never existed; the Tradition of the Church still remains.
          Or, as I have seen, they make elaborate arguments that isolate a phrase from the sentence of Trent (“seu eius voto”), treating it like a Protestant would – i.e., focusing in only on the sentence’ terms and grammar in a theoretical sense, in isolation from all context, making abstruse arguments for what “seu” *could* mean, and whether that supports their preference or not. For a Catholic, the way to resolve the ambiguity of the word “seu” in that context, is by consulting the Holy and Apostolic Tradition witnessed by the Fathers, expounded by the Doctors and theologians, and proposed for belief in the Ordinary Magisterium. The Holy Tradition is serenely clear on how to read that phrase, and the Feeneyite opinion is contrary to it.
          In my opinion, Feeneyism is just an heresy to the Right, over-reacting to the heresy on the Left. The Left is preaching falsely that excuses can be made for everyone, so we can stop worrying and believe that most people will go to heaven; the heresy on the Right, therefore, has been to over-react and condemn even what legitimate hope there is for mercy (and even justice) in extraordinary situations. The irony is rather bitter.

        25. And do you still attend the SSPX? Would the CMRI be a better option?
          Secondly, can effeminacy be cured? As I understand it, effeminacy is kind of a synthesis of sloth, cowardice, idleness and veniality. One must pray to be healed but his previous habits may prevent him from even trying to do so. Therefore one gets caught in a vicious cycle of sorts and despairs. Can such a one even hope to be saved?

        26. Sorry for the delay in response; it’s been a busy couple of weeks for me.
          I attend an SSPX chapel regularly. While it is possible that the CMRI has valid sacraments, unfortunately, there is not sufficient evidence for one to make a morally certain judgment that De Lauriers (from whom their Holy Orders derive) was validly ordained by Thuc. Thus, though I do not say absolutely that they have invalid sacraments (I regard it as somewhat more probable that they do have valid Sacraments), I still regard it as unacceptable to go to them on the presumption of validity, since Canon Law and Moral Theology tell us that one must not approach Sacraments where there is room for positive doubt of their validity. The only Sedevacantist group whose Holy Orders are plainly valid, is the SSPV. I have never attended an SSPV chapel, so no one should think that I say this out of allegiance or favoritism.
          Effeminacy is best defined as a failure to act upon the good, not because of positive suffering or resistance, but because of an inability to deprive one’s self of pleasure and ease. Yes, it seems to me that this must be the absolute hardest of vices to overcome, such that a man who fought it and won would probably have a much better insight into manliness and strength of will, insofar as other men may at least fan the coal of thumos in themselves against their vices, but the effeminate man has to slave away at the bow and the bit until he can light an ember in the first place.
          The Fathers comment upon the passage in the Gospels, where our Lord says “the Kingdom of Heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force,” as meaning that one participates in the heavenly life only by doing violence to his carnal nature. Hence we are crucified with Christ in Baptism, and we compassionate Him in His Passion, “being joined to Him in His sufferings,” and “making up in ourselves whatever is lacking in His sufferings,” and “by the Spirit mortifying the deeds of the flesh,” and “buffeting our bodies and making them our slaves.” In this way we destroy carnal habits and the addiction to pleasure and ease, and become sons of God and sharers in the crucifixion of the Son of God Whose members we are. The effeminate man has only one path of escape: to not allow himself any half-measures, to not reserve for himself a measure of indulgence, but to strain himself to the utmost, in absolute humility and nakedness before God’s grace, to do violence to himself. He has to quit effeminacy cold turkey, embrace a completely different and arduous kind of life, to cut off his own will and desires mercilessly, and, in other words, to repeat it again: he must do violence to himself, and so take the Kingdom of Heaven by force.
          Perhaps after long training, he may be able to make room in his life for some creature comforts and pleasures; my advice in the meantime, would be to get thirsty for pain and hardship, and to regard any superfluous indulgence as radioactive waste.

        27. And are you familiar with the site the epistemologicworks.com?
          After reading it I gather there is nearly equal evidence for both interpretations, Water Only and Baptism of Desire.
          Also isn’t it true that invincible ignorance neither saves nor damns a person but is permitted by God due to sins against the Natural Law which applies to all irrespective of religion?

        28. I am not familiar with that site. However, it is not the case that there is equal evidence for Water Only and Baptism of Desire. The possibility of membership in the Church by desire, is the infallible teaching of the Universal, Ordinary Magisterium. It is the constant teaching of the Fathers and of the Theologians, which the Church teaches to be a norm of doctrine; it is also presented in the teaching of Trent, of the popes and of curial documents. As we all know, it is not necessary for each of these documents to be infallible, individually; it is enough that the morally unanimous teaching of all the Fathers, Saints, Councils, and papal documents is in favor of Baptism by Desire, and there is no common opinion to the contrary. One has to remember that often a general statement may be made by a Father, Council, Pope, etc., which insists on membership in the Church without any mention of baptism by desire; but this is because they are speaking broadly without getting into the details of the question. The only opinions against Baptism by Desire worth considering, would be explicit denials of the doctrine in the writings of the Fathers, Saints, Councils, Popes, etc., and one will find no such thing.
          The doctrine is also repeated often in hagiography, including texts used for the Divine Office (an official fount of Catholic doctrine). It is the definite mind of the Church that God can regard a man as a member of the Church by his desire for baptism and membership in the Church.
          It is true that invincible ignorance, in itself, neither saves nor damns a person; it merely indicates a situation, in which there is no sin imputed to the person for failure to be a member of the Church. That man will be judged on the basis of whether he was faithful enough to the graces given, to attain and to abide in charity (which always includes implicit contrition and implicit desire for membership in the Church).

      3. You do realise that both genders are considered amongst the ‘priesthood of believers’ according to the NT, right? This concept of priesthood as the Catholic church has it today is not found in scripture and is apostate

        1. Cite scripture.
          Here, I’ll do it for you:
          1 Corinthians 14:34
          women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.

        2. 1 Timothy 2:9-15
          I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.For Adam was formed first, then Eve.And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.But women will be saved through childbearing–if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

        3. No, you are confused because you are reading the Bible in English translation, and under the influence of some man-made doctrines invented more than 1500 years after Christ established the Church. The Bible uses two entirely different words for Christian priests, and the universal “priesthood” of believers, because they are entirely different concepts. The early Church kept them separate, as does the Bible and the Church of our day – i.e., the Catholic Church.
          The words used for exclusively Christian clergy are usually translated as “elder” and “overseer” (and “deacon”) in Protestant translations, since this is the literal meaning of the Greek terms (diakonos, presbyteros, episkopos). But, of course, we know that “overseer/supervisor” can mean many things, and an “elder” is an older man – it could equally well be translated as “senior” (the exact, Latin equivalent). So, one has to look to the Tradition of the Church and the earliest Christian writings to understand what these terms meant in the context of the Christian Faith, since they clearly had a specific usage for Christians. In that context, the English word “priest” is derived directly from the Greek “presbyter” for a Christian-only priest (Greek presbyteros= Latin presbyterus= Old English prester= Middle English preste= Modern English priest). “Bishop” is similarly derived from “episkopos” (Greek episkopos= Latin episcopus= Old/Middle English biscop= Modern English bishop). Because England was a Christian nation, the ubiquitous use of the word priest, derived from the New Testament term for uniquely Christian priests, came to be applied to the sacred officials of all religions.
          But the Bible’s word for leaders of non-Christian religions, and for the generic consecration of all Christian believers, is an entirely different word: “hiereus.” Whenever the Bible speaks of the “priesthood” of believers, or the “priests” of Judaism and Paganism, it uses this word. It comes from the Greek word “hieros,” which means “hallowed, consecrated;” changing its ending to “eus” makes it a masculine noun, meaning “a consecrated man.” All Christians are therefore “basileis kai hiereis” (“kings and consecrated persons”) but only some Christians are ordained as presbyteroi and episkopoi (“priests and bishops”). The concepts absolutely should be kept separate, because Scripture keeps them separate and uses entirely separate words for each, different concept. On the one hand, there is the “priesthood” (hierateuma) of all believers; on the other, there is the priesthood (prebytereia) of ordained priests. The “hierateuma” of believers is better translated as “consecrated order” of believers; the “prebytereia” is the priesthood, properly so-called, of Christ’s Church.
          The Scriptures tell us to reject those who come and preach another Gospel. Stick with the Gospel preached by the original and only Church, not the one invented out of thin air by an imbalanced German dude in the 15th century. If you want to talk about doctrines and traditions of men, there’s where you’ll find them.

        4. Then how do you explain all the other doctrines held by the catholic church like baptising infants, praying to Mary/Statues/ Angels instead of God and non marriage allowed? It even says that elders are to be the husband of one wife so how do you bypass that?

        5. This verse has nothing to do with what I just said.
          Galatians 3:28
          There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus

        6. But everyone who trusts in Jesus personally is considered as part of the priesthood of all believers, this is NT doctrine. There are elders ect but no need for priests as of the NT because Jesus is our high priest. The need for a priest to represent us in front of Christ ended in the OT when Jesus died for us on the cross

        7. Whether your soul gets to heaven or not doesn’t depend on physical characteristics. And that passage has precisely zip to do with the priesthood.

        8. Neither does yours considering everyone who trusts in Jesus as their Lord and Saviour is considered as part of the priesthood of all believers? Every believer is a priest. This concept that Believers need an earthly representation is not found in the NT, period

        9. lol I cited two passages clearly referring to that, dumbass. Take your low-IQ hippie ass on out of here.

        10. Studies have shown that there is a correlation between believing in myths and fairytales (i.e: religion) and having a low IQ. Which is pretty self explanatory if you think about it. Do you believe in an elephant headed god too and the frost giants of Norse Mythology? If not, why? There is about as much evidence for them as there is for Jesus’ resurrection
          I highly doubt you are at University studying Chemistry at Masters level either. Maybe you should look in the mirror at some point
          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1029149/Why-people-believe-God-likely-lower-IQ.html

        11. There is nothing in Scripture against baptizing infants; in fact, there are some passages (like the baptism of Cornelius’ family by St. Peter) that imply it may have occurred.
          Neither is there anything in Scripture against prayer to the Saints; there are some passages that directly teach the fundamental reasons for praying to them (i.e., the Scriptural teaching that the saints “are with the Lord” after death, that they see what is happening on the Earth, that they themselves pray to God concerning what is happening on the Earth, that “the prayer of a righteous man availeth much,” our Lord’s explicit teaching that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were still alive in spirit for “God is not God of the dead, but of the living,” and that the thief who confessed Him on the Cross would be with Him that day in paradise, etc.). I mean, why it should be fine to ask your aunt Rhodie to pray for you, but not Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the Good Thief, or any other blessed spirit who has the Lord’s ear, is beyond me. We are all one, all alive, all connected to each other, in Christ. St. Paul’s epistle to the Hebrews explicitly refers to the saints from all ages as a “great cloud of witnesses,” who see us and offer us an example. The Catholic practice is the natural practice for anyone who believes all of that.
          The Scriptures explicitly teach not only that celibacy is allowed, but that it is better than marriage. Our Lord teaches it in the Gospels, and St. Paul reiterates the teaching in his first letter to the Corinthians. Our Lord, our Lady, St. John, St. Timothy, St. Titus – these and others kept their virginity intact. As to priests being the husband of “one wife,” the operative word in that passage, as is obvious from context and from the commentary of the earliest Christians, is “one.” St. Paul is saying that a polygamist or a man who has remarried after divorcing or losing a first wife, is not good material for the clergy. If he was simply saying that a priest should be married, he would say “a priest should be married.” His concern, is that he only be married once. But we know that St. Paul kept himself a virgin and had no wife, and that he commended this as the better path, and that he ordained St. Timothy to be bishop of Ephesus knowing he was a celibate.
          There’s no need to “bypass” anything. You just need to read your Bible more attentively, and understand early Church history.

        12. Again, wrong. The New Testament refers to Christian priests – presbyters – by a different term than it refers to the generic “priesthood” (i.e., “holy order”) of believers. None of the early Christians believed what you believe. You will say that “presbyter” means “elder,” perhaps. Fine. What is an elder? You do not know, and you cannot know, unless you consult the first Christian communities and understand what they believed. St. Paul himself says in the Scriptures that the clergy are “stewards of the Mysteries of God.” You would need to know what he meant by steward, and by the term “mysterion” or “sacramentum.” He teaches that the faithful are to “obey their prelates.” Obviously, if laity depend upon a class of people who steward the Sacraments for them, and who are “prelates” (lit. Greek term meaning “placed in charge of, superior to”), then there is somebody that plays an important role in a Christian’s spiritual life, other than himself and Jesus Christ. There is a “middle man,” in a real sense. The Bible nowhere teaches this “read your Bible and ask Jesus into your heart” spirituality; find one verse that teaches it!
          The Church is the Household of God. There is an hierarchy in it; nobody stands alone. If someone is stranded on a desert island, God can work something out. But under normal circumstances, God has willed that His Church be saved with and through each other, rather than on their own, as individuals. I used to be a Protestant. My experience with Protestants is that they ignore the vast majority of the Bible, and zero in on a very select group of verses. But the Scripture does teach that there is a Christian clergy; it exists for a reason, and yes, you need them – you need the “middle man.”
          If somebody from the 1st century heard our expression “I want to go online,” they would have no idea what this meant to people. Similarly, you cannot simply read a Bible in English, from the perspective of somebody living 1500 or 2000 years later, with no connection to the Apostolic community and its use of terms, its assumptions, etc., and simply adapt a superficial understanding of the “plain sense” of the Bible. You don’t know the plain sense; the plain sense can be deceiving. A great deal of training is required to read and understand Scripture as an whole (though passages here and there may be easy enough to understand in the literal sense). The idea that Scripture is an easy-peasy endeavor, or that it was intended for every layman to read it in a casual, uninformed way, is absurd.

        13. In context, St. Paul is warning the gentile Christians of Galatia not to adapt a Jewish identity simply because they have become Christians. He is pointing out that, when it comes to saving one’s soul, the principle of our salvation is our incorporation into Christ, which transcends race, gender, etc.
          But, again, the context is an encouragement to maintain a separate identity in other respects. The passage from 1st Timothy also shows that, whatever principle of unity there is in Christ, it does not negate the fact that there are differences between the genders. This is why St. Paul could prescribe an entirely different code of behavior for women than men, precisely on the basis that a gender difference dating back to Adam and Eve exists. This is also why the Church leadership has always been male – male apostles, male bishops, male priests. Indeed, St. Paul’s principles of female Christian comportment make it impossible for them to assume a position of leadership.

        14. Hilarious. Now I understand.
          You are an atheist who knows a couple of Bible verses, but with no understanding of their meaning, tradition, interpretation, context, etc. So, you go around citing these at actual Christians, and then piously admonish them to “take a look in the mirror at some point.”
          I would think someone like you would have a less antagonistic relationship to the inexplicable.

        15. My mother lectures in Theology. She did her degree at a world renowned Russell Group university and she has imparted all of her knowledge onto myself. I think I probably have more of an understanding of scripture than your average ‘Christian.’
          After all, I hardly think insulting your opponents in debate by insulting their intelligence could be considered ‘Christ-like’, do you?
          It even says in the NT that if you call someone an idiot you are in danger of the fires of hell.

        16. What was that you were saying about taking verses out on context? xD
          If you read the context around the verses of the baptism of Cornelias’ family it should become apparent to you that it was in response to the family accepting the Gospel of Christ for themselves thus it is acceptable here.
          The way the catholic church does it as I understand is to impart salvation on the infant. As an infant does not have the cognitive capacity to make a decision for him/herself to accept Christ as Lord and Saviour the practice is at best, a vain man-made idea, and at worst, a misleading ruse on the part of Satan to turn people away from Christ.
          Praying to other being aside from the Lord is clearly condemned in scripture as idolatry. What is the first commandment again? Maybe you need reminding of your OT theology. Even the angels admonish the mortals that pray to them; and scripturally they are superior to man. If it is not acceptable to pray to angels how less acceptable is it to pray to mortals? You may aswell pray to stars; it will have about as much effect. We do not know from scripture if the saints can hear our prayers (it is highly unlikely as they will be caught up in worshipping Jesus as Revelation says) and even if they do hear us there is nothing they can do about our prayers. Jesus and the Holy Spirit (so God) and God alone only has the power to intercede on our behalf and is the only persons described in scripture as having that power.
          The requirement in the NT for both deacons and elders are as follows:
          ”blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”
          For all the pretense and pomp of the Catholic Church pretending to be the one ‘true’ Church it is clear that Jesus’ words to the Pharisee’s apply to you: You put the ideas of men above what the Bible clearly states

        17. Again, you have misled, I’m afraid. To suggest that there is a middle man that interceded and forgives sins on the part of the Christian is astonishing blasphemy on the part of the Catholic Church.
          It makes a mockery of everything Christ did on the Cross if a mere mortal man can forgive our sins for us. It is clear you have little understanding of the NT doctrine from what you are typing here. The NT is quite clear that only Jesus and the Holy Spirit intercedes on behalf of believers (Romans 8:34 and Romans 8:26-27) The mandate of priesthood as the Catholic Church understands it is a complete waste of time and unnecessary.
          Christians can intercede on behalf of non believers as they possess the Holy Spirit indwelling within them; Christians born again of the Holy Spirit do not require another mortal to intercede for them; they have the ability to commune directly with God by virtue of the Holy Spirit inside them.
          There is no formal requirement for Christians to attend church either according to the NT; the only verse that comes close to the suggestion is ‘do not neglect the assembly of the believers’
          As for your last paragraph; I understand that you have probably invested heavily in your theological training but Jesus’ first followers were not theologians or professionals. They were simple fishermen. They were not even literate. Yet they won thousands of souls for Christ because they had the Holy Spirit and followed his leading. A theological education is not required to understand Christianity. You only need to preach the Gospel as the HS leads to build the Kingdom of God.

        18. This is an irrelevant mass of private opinions; see how easily you set aside the commandments of God for your man-made tradition! Hear the Scriptures:
          “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him. Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much. Elias was a man passible like unto us: and with prayer he prayed that it might not rain upon the earth, and it rained not for three years and six months. And he prayed again: and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. My brethren, if any of you err from the truth, and one convert him: He must know that he who causeth a sinner to be converted from the error of his way, shall save his soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins.”
          There you have it: the ministry of the priests of the Church is different from that of ordinary believers; their prayer “saves” the man and brings him forgiveness of sins; confession of sins is enjoined, along with prayer “that you may be saved;” the prayer of a just man for other men (including Christians) avails much, and if one brings an erring Christian back, he “saves” him and “covers over a multitude of sins.” That Hebrew phrase, “cover over sins,” is used in many places as synonymous with “forgive sins” (i.e., Psalm 32:1 “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered”).
          The Book of the Apocalypse also portrays the martyrs as alive in spirit and praying to God continually that justice be done upon the Earth for them.
          And, again, the most obvious thing: you act as if the Bible alone contains the truths of our Faith, which is an anti-Christian doctrine, ironically not contained in Scripture.
          Finally, while a college degree is not required to understand the bare bones of the Gospel, instruction by competent men certainly is required. Hence the Scriptures command the laity to obey their prelates and teachers, obviously acknowledging that not every person is going to be competent to understand the teaching of the Gospel, but that most will require competent instruction, which they must obey, rather than reject in favour of their own “inner spiritual enlightenment.” Hence the Ethiopian eunuch admitted “how can I understand it, unless someone explain it to me?” If you have not been taught the Gospel by a successor of the Apostles or their appointed deputies, you have no basis for declaring that you have understood the book you read. Even if I wanted to concede that the inner enlightenment of the Holy Spirit works as you say, there would be no guarantee that you believed the Gospel in the first place, and so received the Spirit to begin with. Indeed, I tell you plainly: you have not.
          “How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things!” You are reading mail that does not belong to you; you are reading words in a book and making up your own mind about them. You must hear the Gospel from one who has been sent, from one given the commission by the Church. You can set up whatever you want on your own, you can read the Bible as much as you want. But you are an outsider, and are defaming the holy things you presume to handle.

        19. Obviously we each feel the same way about the other – you are putting your human tradition ahead of God’s doctrine. I accept that there is such a thing as Holy Tradition, as the Bible also teaches. It is not just the words of Scripture which bind the Church.
          The angels rebuke men for worshipping them as divine beings. When it comes to Saints, there are two things to remember: asking their prayers, and paying them honor as princes of God’s household, is not at all the same thing as offering worship to them. Second, in the New Testament a new order of things emerges: the Scriptures themselves teach that the souls of the just pray to God, that they enter a share of glory, that they are with the Lord, that they are members of the Body of Christ, that they are to judge angels and administer God’s kingdom. God has come to elevate man to the very throne of God in Christ, “with whom you are seated in the heavenly places.” Departed Christians are in a position of honor and power, even higher than the angels. This is clearly taught in Scripture, and, more importantly, honoring them and asking their intercession was early on the universal practice of all Christians. The Church is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth; what she proposes in her authoritative ministry is free from error, just as much as the Scripture.
          We have already seen that you were unaware of the basic difference between the Christian priesthood, and the universal consecration of believers, and the fact that entirely Greek words are used for these entirely different concepts. We have seen that you believe in Scripture alone, when the Bible nowhere teaches this – thus, it should not be a doctrine that a “Biblical” Christian believes. Why should you, or anyone else, have confidence in your private views? My views are not my own, but are clearly seen to be in continuity with Christian history from the earliest ages, from the men who knew the Apostles and were ordained by them to the priesthood and episcopacy.
          God save you and have mercy upon you, and upon me as well.

        20. Of course, Jesus often insulted the ignorance and venality of deserving persons.
          Yes, to rage against someone with disdain is a mortal sin; to observe that they are foolish, blind, wicked, etc., is no sin.

    2. Yeah, and it’s strange how women who aren’t raised in a Christian house-hold generally gravitate towards the Occult and buy into Mediums and psychics, basically they seek all the dark practices that God warns against,..must be an Eve thing..

      1. Аre you sure? Most medieval witches were originally raised in traditional Christian households.
        Besides, the horoscop has been popular among western women long before the 1960s Revolution.

        1. That may very well be true, not to mention some girls become rebellious and leave their Christian roots most likely to spite their fathers, but I think the Majority of Christian women steer clear of the occult.

        2. That may be true for Western women but not the rest. For instance, most African and Carribean women practice some form of occultism (voodoo, etc.). Since most practicing Christians live outside the West,…

    3. This is why god mandated that leadership of the church to be all-male. Not-part female or even having even one female.
      And considering that Elders and deacons are all required to be husbands of one respectable wife and well behaved children. The church is also to be stewarded by venerable patriarchs.

    4. True. If you check out Numbers, Chapter 30, Women couldn’t even make or keep a vow without a man’s permission.

  12. Saint Thomas Aquinas identifies effeminacy [mollities] and “being soft” [mollis] with the sin of masturbation. Think about it: the act of a man having sex with himself is essentially a form of homosexuality. Check out the Troops of Saint George for a manly Catholic option: troopsofstgeorge.org

  13. Just a little Captain Obvious here: This is clearly a heavy article with some very good thoughts on what it means to be “A Man” in the 21st century and it only generates 46 (now 47) comments as of this writing, while “2 Feminist Sluts Indoctrinate America” article gets 274 comments. I think if Roosh and some others want to be taken seriously about “the state of man” and what men can do to become better men, the reason for the difference in comment levels (which is apparent to the people commenting) should be addressed.

    1. Simple answer is it’s harder to be focused on self-improvement and accountability. It’s cool to be loose and do whatever you want. I’m sure someone else has a better answer than me but if you have an option of broccoli or ice cream, most people are choosing the ice cream.

        1. By the way, are you the same Lance who used to comment around here more often? Your avatar is different.
          If so, I missed not having you around as much; I always like reading your thoughts.

    2. now 56, 25 minutes after your posted. I doubt it will get over 200 being a serious article, but people still actively contribute

    3. Yeah, the most nihilistic articles on here get the most feed…the elephant in the room is that there’s a significant amount of posters on ROK that take pleasure in constantly blaming women, as if we men don’t enable this behavior…I actually cringe reading some of the comments…too much misanthropy and repressed rage.
      Don’t get me wrong, I think this website is great but the reason articles like this don’t get a lot of feed is because it is spiritual and requires one to conduct some personal introspection.

      1. That’s alright; sometimes you have to get broken down a bit, before you can rise up. I think it’s good to have, on the one hand, some articles that will attract men who are waking up to the sham they’ve been sold by the culture… and, when they’re here, to have some articles that may also point to the higher things. I think plenty of men turn to other things after they learn the “tricks of the trade,” see how easy it is, and see how unfulfilling mere success with bedding women can be.
        When they hit that point, maybe they’ll take another step.

      2. Well, in fairness to the comment section, we are now over 200 comments, so I probably should take back what I said earlier. Nevertheless, everything else you said is spot on.

    4. Just like anything else. Article on the national budget: 50 comments. Article on the Kartrashian Clan: 8000 comments. The edgier (and more trashy/emotional) the content the more attention it receives.

  14. As always with C.P. / Aurelius M. this is a learned and fascinating read, which seems to me spot on in the main, particularly with regard to “the instinct for integrity, for pursuit of the ideal, for disciplining one’s self to stay the course” as inherently masculine . This, together with the description of virtue / virility and general fortitude I think draws comparison to the psychologist lawrence kohlberg’s idea that men in general are better able to reach the higher levels of moral development, particularly with regard to an idea of justice (comparable to ‘the good’ perhaps) that depends to some extent upon abstraction from the more embodied and emotional perception characteristic of women (in manosphere terms ‘the feels’ of the situation).
    While I generally hold this to be true, I think one can exaggerate the degree to which this must always be true. Probably my main reason for thinking this (hopefully a rational rather than an emotional one) is my continued fascination with the brilliance – arguably genius – of Simone Weil, the Catholic of jewish origin – philosopher-mystic of the early twentieth century. It’s quite likely that as with other female (and male) mystics there may be something emotional and perhaps ‘ecstatic’ about some of her ideas. That possibility aside, I would consider that in virtually every other respect she rose above her sex / gender to the point where (in a perhaps distinctly catholic sense?) sexuality was something almost by the way – if it was present it was sublimated, and sublimated towards the pursuit of the understanding of her rather idiosyncratic (and probably doctrinally suspect) version of God / Christianity. I am not evangelising here, or pushing her ideas – which are in the main to a mortal man or woman uncompromisingly bleak and probably impossible to live up to – but I would note that one of her main allegiances beyond her Christianity itself – to the extent it can be separated from the latter – was her thorough-going platonism.
    I have some misgivings about some aspects of platonism, but in many ways I consider the platonism she espoused to be the best parts. For Weil, the essence of her platonic influenced Christianity was the pursuit of the Good, and of the search for that good and for God Himself beyond the veil (a controversial but still very sustainable idea). Moreover, it was through Weil that I encountered the idea of the Great Beast – not the beast of the book of revelations, but the platonic beast, which is nothing other than society itself, when it is reduced to the mentality of the herd, of the collective, judging what is good to be that which pleases it, and what is evil to be nothing other than what it dislikes. It is precisely this great beast which we are in our present consumer, celebrity led culture reduced to bowing down before. What is facebook, with its orientation around ‘likes’ or even twitter with its apotheosis of popularity through accumulating ‘followers’ but the elevation of this great beast to the principle of morality.
    To my mind it is perhaps here more than elsewhere we see the weak of mind, mostly women, but almost as many men, bowing down before sensation, and desire, and a narcissistic and hedonistic ethic that celebrates popularity and the path of least resistance over the pursuit of what is good and what is right in and for itself. I don’t think there is anything in what I’m saying which contradicts what A.M asserts in the article, beyond the fact that there are some, if very few, women who may be capable of virtue in the masculine sense described. I am not that familiar with Iris Murdoch but I would also point out that she too advocated ‘the sovereignty of the good’ over ‘the nice’ based on similar if not identical platonic ideals.
    As for the rest of feminine influence on theology and religion, that’s pretty much as far as I can be complimentary. Much of what is going on at the moment can be seen as an attempt to re-invigorate ‘the sacred feminine’. Back when I read the Da Vinci code I wouldn’t have had anything bad to say about it. These days though it’s difficult to separate all of this from a christianized version of goddess / earth mother worship, or as others have pointed out very pagan lunar worship.

    1. Good comment. Simone Weil was an enigma. She rose above her sex and ethnicity in a spectacular way which I suspect contributed to her premature death.
      The point about Femininity in the divine is that it doesn’t have any motion or direction. It’s interests are always linked back to the corporeal, the worldly, the physical, the all to human in some manner. The Masculine, regardless of humanity, is incessant movement, exploration and creativity, it points always beyond itself to something greater than itself.

      1. Thanks. I agree. She was. She suffered constantly from headaches. Middle-class migraine doesn’t quite cut it. I don’t remember all the circumstances of her death but she does appear to have neglected her health and punished her body in pursuit of her spiritual vision
        Your characterisation of the sexes in relation to knowledge is very interesting and I think correct. You are quite right about the pointing beyond aspect of masculinity, but in a sense there is also perhaps a slightly less sublimated aspect of the masculine drive to understand: or rather if the masculine always points beyond itself it also seeks to penetrate beyond appearance to the behind-ness of things in a way that reflects masculine sexuality vis a vis woman as the object of knowledge. Feminists have often sought to critique that ‘way of knowing’ but seem to offer nothing by way of replacement

        1. She suffered from an almost psychotic degree of despondency with what she perceived as an evil, incurably despoiled world. I don’t know if her Jewishness added to this self flagellation in all its senses which she felt was her unique authentic answer to this cosmic mystery she believed was being played out in her existence.
          However, I would conservatively say that this sense of divine alienation from the world had something to do with her premature death by starvation. Ultimately, unlike most women, she couldn’t accommodate herself to this world.
          Your’re right about the role of women in the divine scheme. When you think logically about it, how else can men discover about the knowledge of the world but through the vector of women. However, you’re correct when you intimidate that women “themselves” are blind to the the actual knowledge of the hinterwelt, even if they’re portals to that world, they’re myopic to its content.

        2. It’s been a while since I read any of her works but I am sure her jewishiness did influence her view of the world. Some of her ideas are quite gnostic which probably explains her interest in the cathars – who obviously were heretics in the eyes of the church. I was also reading that her idea of a God who is remote from the world is analogous to the jewish / kabbalistic idea of tzimtzum – God’s withdrawal from the universe. The difference for Weil though is this creates the possibility of something quasi – supernatural: God as a kind of impossible love. I seem to remember that for Weil the distance of God from the world was integral to the impossible – i.e. miraculous – nature of God’s love. While many have seen such distance or absence as something akin to being alone in the world – an effectively atheist position – for her it seems to have become the basis of her faith. Her health was always fragile and it seems likely that that this may have contributed to her idea that suffering / affliction was a vehicle for God’s / Christ’s love. She’s a profound thinker, and as close as one can get to an objective “saint” but because of her pessimism I don’t necessarily consider her a great model for living a life in this world.
          Re. women’s role in knowledge generally, I’m quite interested in the ‘epistemology’ of gender in the sense we’ve discussed. There’s a sense in which knowledge-wise if men are trying to get inside the world’s knickers, women are intent on keeping them on: that’s not to say there aren’t women interested in advancing science etc but that to some extent at least they are emulating the masculine mode of interrogating the world when they do so; otherwise they are merely administering / managing the knowledge economy. Even with Weil though a lot of her thought emphasises relationship

        3. I think your point about the differences between both genders in relation to how knowledge is acquired about the world, one’s self, one’s inter-relationships “with different classes of beings” is a really interesting question. I know the terminology, I’ve used is a little abstract but epistemology, perception and how “we get to know certain things” about our own reality through the use of language, or through non-verbally means, like music or purely visual states, which makes up the majority of our consciousness each day is something that’s “experienced” quite differently by both genders.
          It seems an obvious point of reference, yet, it’s taken so much for granted that there’s no difference. Even in artistic areas, like writing lyrics to a song or writing poems about the natural world, there’s hardly any women who has been able to measure up in any areas they should be naturally good at in comparison to men? No Robert Frost, Wallace Stevens, Roy Orbison? The reason, I think comes back to your point about epistemology, namely that women never have real access to the realm of ideas or the “LOGOS” that allows a person to understand reality, to give it definable form in terms of language that allows us as human beings to comprehend reality (reality is not the same concept as the world). I don’t think women have access to the LOGOS state to do this, and this because of the way nature and God created them. It’s that simple.

        4. I think the gender aspect of epistemology is a genuinely fascinating subject. I think one problem is that where men have been concerned with that issue, and did make casual ‘patriarchal’ or pro-masculine assumptions such as might be found on this site, they have tended to be leftists and to believe that there were simply no differences between men. Modern gender neutral theory reinforces that mistake. Ironically though feminism particularly in the past (i.e. before the 90s when everything went post-modern) did try to understand the different ways of thinking and understanding the world that divided the sexes. Christina Hoff Sommers makes reference to this when she pours scorn on radical feminisms insistence on ‘women’s ways of knowing’ as an alternative to ‘male science’ & male logic.
          I often come back to the kohlberg / gilligan debate which first really articulated this idea (kohlberg emphasised male justice / rationality while gilligan countered with a female ethic of care / relating), but again I think courtesy of Hoff Sommers, there have been some feminists like Evelyn Fox Keller who’ve attacked male epistemological underpinnings of knowledge at a far deeper level: describing for example the idea that visual metaphor in science has predominated since at least descartes if not plato or before and that this privileges male ways of knowing etc.
          I think in this regard the time has come to actually re-affirm such male ways of knowing – or as it has always simply been known science, reason – logos – because the female alternative doesn’t seem to be providing us with alternative ways of knowing but by and large to be shutting down knowledge whole-scale. I do have respect for some female academics etc, but as we’ve previously been discussed, there coherence seems largely to depend on eschewing those specifically female ways of looking at the world. Ultimately the truth seems to be that men and women see the world in incredibly different ways unless that default is overridden somehow. I think the first task is to “beat about the head” those largely male idealists who just don’t want to see the reality that men and women just aren’t the same.

        5. I agree. I don’t know what female epistemology amounts to? They talk about female “caring and relating” as counterpoints to male “justice and fair play”. The point is that these “female” ways of being are as much a part of men as they are women. For example, the male interest in the development of medicine and surgical techniques came from a caring instinct, likewise, men are far superior at “relating” than women and it’s a well known truism that men work and relation to each other in teams much more than females can ever do. Men are naturally clubbable towards their own kind, with women there are some elements of this too, however, female-female rivalry in all female groups generally destroys cohesion, as the element of a natural leader is alien to the female psyche.
          I’ve never seen any female counterpoint to the notion of universal male justice that has given us the modern world with all its inviolable rights and privileges. I cannot believe, with the greatest respect that I have for some women involved in the judicial and legislative processes, that the female mind historically, would of possessed the knowledge and conviction to bring into fruition a set of laws and institutions that have radically bettered the lives of all citizens. This was the result of male knowledge, discourse, discussion and dialogue that brought this to be.
          The prove of this point is summed up by the fact that we’re all still awaiting the great vision and contribution that liberated women were supposed to make to society, politics and the world. And yet we’re all still waiting, and waiting, and the sorry truth is that all they do is to copy male behaviors and strategies . I would genuinely love to see a movement from the other 50% that was made and generated by them, that wasn’t an replicate of the male way and that was feminine. I have asked this question to feminists on many occasions, why this failure to implement their ow ideas…..and I’ve never received a satisfactory response. This proves to me that women can’t fundamentally understand the world in their own right, as they lack that capacity to know it in the way men do. This is not a male conspiracy, it’s simple biology and genetics which designed us to be different, and to know different things.

        6. “I’ve never seen any female counterpoint to the notion of universal male justice that has given us the modern world with all its inviolable rights and privileges”
          There probably isn’t one. Gilligan pointed out some aspects of a more feminine ethics which might be summed up as ‘caring’, ‘kindness,’ or the ability to try to relate to others. I don’t think that’s wrong but as an idea it has never been applied consistently or fairly as a basis for justice would presumably require. It’s one thing to care for and show kindness towards those you like but without some kind of guiding abstract principle of duty, right or the good (allowing for the variability in male solutions to ethics) its hard to see that as a substitute for justice. I do think women are often better than men at seeing the small and intimate things. As men, we train ourselves, or at least we used, to see the need for steel, firmness and fortitude over weakness and indulgence and in doing so – to privilege the greater things over the smaller, the bigger picture over the microcosmic one, or to borrow one female author’s title ‘the god of small things’ which seems to reign over of us in no small part at present
          There are two great problems with the female contribution to knowledge and ethics in my opinion. Firstly they cannot seem to distinguish the good from what pleases them in the moment – although there are a few women of principle and insight who rise above this limitation – Hoff Sommers being an outstanding example that I have already mentioned. The second I think relates to an impoverished commitment to the pursuit of truth in and for itself. One of the great evils of our time – in terms of social justice, revolution, and systems of ethics that involve the idea of “progress”, is the commitment to an ends justifies the means approach to ethics. Unfortunately women have been at the forefront of embracing such an ethics with regard to politics and knowledge i.e. placing some political end (often based on feeling) above the pursuit of truth (e.g. in academia) or respect of (due) process in law.
          Again this is generalisation, but unfortunately it seems to be the case, even though again there are a few outstanding exceptions, and as I have said someone like Simone Weil for me is up there at the top. I don’t see any reason to diminish her achievement. It is what it is.
          As for discovery and broadening our knowledge of the universe, I’m inclined to think women have so far been more involved with limiting than enabling this, and where they have advanced knowledge in some sense the purpose has been largely adversarial or critical i.e. with destructive rather constructive purpose. The best I can say in this regard is that some women have occasionally been at the forefront of constraining the pursuit of knowledge when for example this involved the harm of animals for instance. Sometimes their kindness is an absolute – there is no bigger picture – and I have a certain sympathy for such an absoluteness. If you happened to be one of the animals in question I imagine that might be no small thing. Of course both men and women can show compassion and women as we well know can be cruel, particularly where their pride is involved.
          Perhaps its still early days, but I’m inclined to think the problem is simply with the ultimately ‘misogynist’ expectation that women should behave, think and function like men. The platonic imperative ‘to know oneself’ must surely apply to both men and women, and if one good thing can come out of feminism and what follows, it is that the sexes now have the opportunity to have greater knowledge of themselves as men and women in their difference.

    2. A very interesting comment; thanks for it.
      I haven’t read Simone Weil, yet, but so far as you describe her, she sounds very much in the mainstream of the contemplative tradition. The aspiration towards the Good beyond the veil, as you put it, is not controversial at all; it is the normal, Catholic spiritual life.
      My rediscovery of Patriarchy and Tradition, and of my own masculinity, came in my early twenties. I had thought of myself as not being “manly enough” at one time, because my interests were more philosophical, literary, musical and artistic. Our modern society portrays these things as “girly,” though, free now from the brainwashing, I can never understand why. As I read for my Old English Degree at the University, I read Beowulf and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight; for my Classics degree, I read the Iliad and the Aeneid. I had something of an epiphany: all of this poesy, all of this literature, all of this beauty and lore and wisdom and craft, was the work of men – and it dealt with the world of men, and I loved it. I faced up to some of my shortcomings – a lack of athleticism and physical strength and the need to gain some balance, being strong in body and in mind. But from then on, I realized that my interests were not “unmanly” at all – they were the best and highest of all male interests.
      One of the things that tipped me over towards this realization, came while chanting Matins for the Greek Orthodox Parish where we monks served the Liturgy on Sundays. I was using a book with the Greek on the left and the English on the right; father wanted us to sing it in English. But the English translation, put out by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, was always very bad. So, I would usually just translate straight from the Greek and sing my own version in English. Well, one particular day it was the feast of St. Barbara the Great-Martyr. I noticed that the English translation had a very pc agenda. The service was always making reference to St. Barbara as “a weak person,” or was saying that “though she was a weak person, she was stronger than other people.” This seemed both impious and inane. The Greek text, made it very clear: she was “but a frail woman,” and “though possessed of a woman’s weaker nature, she surpassed many even of the men” in her way of life. I then consulted the services for other women saints, and realized that the Church’s Tradition always viewed the women saints as having become great, precisely because they became manly. The spiritual life is a masculinizing thing. But, you’re right to point out that there’s a feminine aspect, present especially in female saints, but also in the men.
      I plan to talk about that a couple articles down the line.

      1. Thanks for your comment. Simone Weil is not to everyone’s taste. I am sure she is part of a greater Catholic – mystic – tradition, but there is something uncompromising and as I say bleak which seemed to stand out to me – I’m not that familiar with catholic mysticism although I did try reading St John of the Cross once and I found that pretty bleak too but in a rather different way.
        I like your characterisation of classical and heroic literature as inherently masculine, rather than girly, and like you I’m at a loss to understand how a masculine culture that produced such a canon of sublime and great art could now become a thing scorned and neglected by young men. The denigration and critical annihilation of so much of great literature and art as anything beyond cultural curiosity in favour of mimicry and tatt, is a great loss not just for young men but for culture as a whole. The good thing is it is at least becoming clearer with every day that passes that this is a situation that needs repairing
        The points you make in your anecdote are also fascinating, and of course political correctness, and inclusive language etc is by its very nature emasculating. I remember reading “sacred hagiography” which made the point – which in your position you are probably aware of – that saints were characterised by ‘heroic virtue’ which I think reinforces your idea that spiritual virtue is masculine by virtue of its ‘heroic’ nature. Saint’s lives were amongst the first biographies – maybe the ancient ‘worthies’ of greece and rome came before: but in both cases exemplary, heroic lives, spiritual or in the case of the ancients, martial, were designed to inspire ordinary people to live lives beyond mundane base instinct

      2. Its primarily through entryism that the arts have become womanly or effeminate and the association of beauty with femininity and hence women. Hence why Gays and women are the more predominant artists nowadays. However the creation of beauty has always been done by talented men who created the pinnacles of beauty in craft(Where function and aesthetics are wedded together as one),architecture and paintings.

      3. ”Church’s Tradition always viewed the women saints as having become
        great, precisely because they became manly. The spiritual life is a
        masculinizing thing.”
        Podles goes into this in his pdf: “Church impotent” Seems well founded in scripture as well as in tradition Christian and non-christian alike.

  15. I’m an atheist – religion doesn’t go well with Chinese materialism. My theology remains ethnic nationalism.
    But if religion gives a man ideological stability, so be it. In some ways it’s better than the relativistic bullshit you get from hipster atheists. Just don’t get too illogical about it

    2. Chinese materialism. No wonder the Occident never had that sense of “divine discontentment” that allowed the west to give the world every advancement it has.

        1. Materialism is a closed system. Any system of thought that’s closed to other possibilities that give meaning and purpose to reality, like Chinese materialism or asexual “reproduction” in biology cannot add value or insights from outside of themselves. Hence their lack of interest, creativity and invention.

        2. So your use of the phrase ‘divine discontentment’ implies a discontentment that is divine rather than a disappointment with the divine?

        3. A discontentment that is divine would be more accurate. That sense of profound dissatisfaction with the world that compels men to creation and invent. Women have no sense of this divine discontentment and this is one of the prime reasons why women generally don’t create or invent things that either improve (the sciences) or inspire (the arts and religion) human beings to excellence and greatest.

        4. Quite interesting view. I can understand the place where it comes from, but I am sceptical towards it. It may be related to sexual sublimination, which would correspond neatly with the Churches shaming of sexuality in large parts. While I can not deny the greatness of some works of art, I do not want to live a life of suffering to produce such work.

        5. You’re right to a point about the sexual guilt and shame which the Churches attached to one’s liberty in this area of life. Guilt can be a deadly and paralyzing force against the natural vitality that you should feel as a man. However, I’m not sure if filling in this “void” with the whole spectrum of sexual arrangements that people can avail of these days will produce a healthy and fulfilled human being. It’s important that you identify that sense “That I’m doing something wrong and bad” in yourself and deal with where this idea came from in yourself. I’ve seen people who’ve jumped into a hedonistic of living, where they believed they were free and happy, because of this sense of unresolved guilt that they never addressed in themselves. In most cases it led to suffering, hardship, dependency, and pain, because they never identified the root cause and they were simply running away from it.
          Suffering as much as joy is always going to make up a part of everyone’s’ lives, none of us can avoid it. However, you can as a man, have a strategy and an outlook that allows you to incorporate such experiences in a healthy and detached manner. I like the Taoist idea that there’s no such thing as suffering, but, only relationships that are not in harmony with the way. This gives real hope as it allows you to develop to a point where suffering can be ameliorated and be seen for what it truly is.

        6. Interesting, yes. Indeed, I have seen many a man dissatisfied with a hedonistic way and even plagued by ‘demons’ to the point that they were too afraid to go to sleep without a girl, ever. I personally hold the view that sexuality does not have to be lived out in extreme manners as Roosh does it. I think the need to do that comes from a lack of intimacy and real masculine expression in those encounters, leaving one hungry for more without ever being satiated.
          Yes, I actually agree about your views on suffering. That is what I meant. To be controlled by shame and guilt to a point where one’s sexuality is stunted and never expressed but through art. I find that to be quite opposed to ‘the way’.
          I have found a site about hedonistic pleasures that I particularly enjoy. Maybe you know it: http://theracerx.com

        7. Fear of intimacy. That’s well noted. Isn’t this what women are always saying we never give them. It can be very dangerous and frightening experience opening up another, as you’re essential extremely vulnerable. They know your secrets and certain types of women can use this to have control over weaker men. It can be a risky strategy and perhaps sometimes I think people with residual issues should confide in either a professional or a good male friend, but, not with someone you’ve an emotional/sexual relationship with (your wife or partner).

        8. Ah, very good point. My mother was mentally ill and whatever intimacy I allowed, she used – without conscious intent probably – to tear my soul apart. So most of my life, I lived quite the opposite of intimacy: Complete denial of self.
          I think that the intimacy with women is quite different from that one should have with men. I think that intimacy with women means to show your dominance and sexual assertiveness without fear of being shamed for it. Sounds ironic, does it not? Why would the evil oppressor with the penis need approval of his evil rape intentions? But I think that that is the core. Not to be ashamed of one’s sexual expression and violent sides and to show them to the girl and to have the courage to hope and expect for approval of that.
          As for more sentimantal matters and weaknesses, I quite agree that this is something men are more suited for. Trouble is that I did not trust men most of my life and even now, it is hard for me. But whenever I do open up to an understanding man, it is a great relief, because he can actually empathize. That opens up doors I did not think existed.

        9. I think you’re probably right about intimacy with women. Despite what’s said by the even most progressive feminist, women still expect and only respect a man who takes the lead in the bedroom. It doesn’t work any other way. Dominance is a natural and healthy part of one’s masculinity and yet there’s a creeping movement that tries to make you feel guilty for being a natural man. How absurd the world has become.
          I take your point about other men. The issue sometimes relates to our masculinity, although we’re getting better at it, when another man, especially of you don’t know him too well starts talking about this private life we tend to get a bit defensive as we’re not always as comfortable as women about going there. However, empathy, one of Krishnamurti’s redeeming values is something a good male friend or colleague can provide and sometimes it’s as simple as just saying “Yes…I know” after a mate tells his story.

        10. Yeah, I can relate to that very well. As for dominance, I think that it occurs as a natural expression with the right woman. Her nature tells her to submit, his nature tells him to dominate. If one of them does not play his or her part, the other one can not do much about it, I guess. So I guess that if a man fails to find women who will submit to him sexually, he will start to doubt his own ability to attract mates and become depressive. And in the worst case, he will not even have access to these feelings and be ashamed of even thinking this. I mean: ‘Suck it up, dude’.
          Yes, that is true. I wonder if that is how it has to be. I have met men who are very open to these kind of things. Frankly, I think it is just a manifestation of an unhealthy homophobia that leads to that. Since being more open about myself in these comment sectins, there have been men who told me not to whine around and shit. On the other hand, I came to have contact with a guy through my blog with whom I can talk about practically everything. It is very comforting and it takes away emotional dependence on women – ironically a byproduct of this homophobia and lack of emotional bonding.

        11. There’s something in what you say about homophobia. The notion that you’re not a “real man” if you talk and open up about issues that are of an emotional content with another guy. This is both unhealthy and completely lacking in any empathy for another person. In fact, I think that men who are bone happy in their sexuality generally don’t have a problem with other men talking to them about these kinds of things. The ones who react negatively are perhaps recoiling towards something deep within themselves.
          The problem is compounded by the fact that we crudely regulate all such experiences into our predetermined box system of sexuality. In truth, intimate bonds that are built up between males and sometimes between males and females may not denote any erotic or sexual significance at all. However these bonds can be deeper and more meaningful than any sexual or erotic bond which might not posses any intimacy. Unfortunately as Carl Jung was well aware, when it comes to our mental lives well do not posses adequately in our lexicon of language the nuance, the contour, the gleam, of these deeply significant and personal experiences that makes sense of the archetypes that seem to inhabit who we are.
          The question relating to why we are a part of this gigantic mental architecture that seems to inhabit us, transcend us, per and post exist us, and live in both the depths and heights of who we are, is an incredibly difficult question for psychiatry to answer with any confidence. In essence this is the point where science cannot really venture beyond as we’re dealing with issues way beyond the current paradigm.

        12. Yes, I think you are right. As for the lack of nuance in language, this is something that fascinates me in particular. Ever since my Ayahuasca ceremony, in fact. I am still in the process of reading the book ‘Language in Thought and Action’ and it has offered great insights that seem to solve many of the so called ‘mysteries’ of humankind, at least the way I see it. For instance questions like ‘does free will exist?’ and ‘do we have a soul?’ turn out to be nothing but mere word games.
          An example always like to bring up is a tribe that has no word for the color blue and is thus unable to recognize it. What if there are emotions we have no names for? Will we even acknowledge them? Is there a way to live beyond the realm of verbal articulation and truly experience the moment? It is a scary thing to do, to imagine that there are no words; it brings one into the moment quite uncomfortably. Another problem is that words like ‘selfishness’ are tainted with a negative light in our culture and there is no substitute to express the concept healthily. Thus, it is as good as if the concept did not exist at all.
          Why are we part of it? Is it important? What kind of answer can ‘why’ provide? Has someone decided to put us here? Was there some prior event to us being here? Would these answers change anything?
          Yesterday, I was asked a question on the internet that striked me deeply, despite seeming very simple and innocuous. My intuition had a very clear answer. Maybe you will like it, too: Who creates your life?

        13. Margaret Thatcher once remarked that she found it absurd, that people thought women were the more empathetic sex. She mentioned that the only people who had ever really empathized or accepted or taken the time to connect with what she was saying, were men. Women are the sex that like to console more; but consolation is different from empathy.

        15. Indeed the great cage of language keeps us in our prison cells. I remember reading some time back, Benjamin Whorf’s papers on the grammatical structures used by the Hoppi native american tribes. The paper was a profound revelation to my way of thinking and it thought me the importance of how narrow our culturally conditioned ways can be when it comes to exploring the nature of reality. For example, the Hoppi tribe never use tenses or verb structures in the way we do, so events happen to them, they don’t initiate events, in other words the world comes to them, rather then them going to it. Also, they have words for emotional and spiritual experiences which we cannot comprehend because our language cannot speak of them and hence knows nothing about them.
          This doesn’t invalidate their experiences, but rather it means that our Indo-European language system does not know these states and cannot describe them through its language structure. This taught me the salient fact that western science cannot speak the truth on a range of issues across the spectrum of what’s reality as it experienced by the totality of human beings on this planet. How can it. Wouldn’t that be the supreme arrogance to say it could?
          Nevertheless, I think there’s good reasons for us to be structured in the way we are. Our physical brains for example act essentially as filters, it allows us to function as relatively “normal” sentient beings in this world. When we take powerful psycho active drugs like LSD or suffer an injury that causes brain trauma we are, to be it mildly, not ourselves, and our sense of having a unitary self is severely disturbed. Additionally the mind can become overrun with archaic and terrifying specters and fragments that relate to a whole different order of reality. This is the software that runs the entire system, we are not meant to access it as it can be deadly to our well being.
          However the point remains, there would appear to be multiple levels of reality, but do we need to know anything about them? Probably not, or at least not in their undiluted primordial forms. Perhaps there is an important reason why each and every one of us is here, even if the empirical evidence of the world would seem to suggest otherwise (that’s what it’s designed to do anyway) but knowing the answer to this question in life is perhaps not the important thing. I would suspect that the why question can only be, with good reason, answered after the event?

        16. Benjamin Whorf, gotta remember that. Sounds very interesting.
          With all due respect, your opinion of LSD sounds like that of a coward. I have experienced that which you call primordial and yes, it is immensely frightening. Actually, the way you describe it brings it back to my memory very vividly, thank you for that. I would not feel half as complete as I do, had I not incorporated these experiences. I do not believe that there is a set of rules as to what one is meant to see. Maybe the only limiting factor is how much one dares to see. And how long it takes for one to accept what one has seen.
          I guess one need not know those layers, of course. Indeed, what does one require to do, anyway? I know that my instinct drives me to explore those terrors until they cease being terrors. Not following this instinct would feel like amputating a part of me – as I like to say. It may be arrogant of me to assume that it is equally helpful and interesting for everyone, but I know what it has done for me and I would not want to miss it.
          For instance, the thing about words. When I was on Ayahuasca, I broke out in panic and ran out into the Peruvian jungle. The shaman’s helpers came after me and kept calling and saying ‘I want to help you’. And the words started floating on a sphere outside of me, for lack of a better description. I realized that these words are not me. I then started to look for safety in my mind. But I realized that the things I use to hold on to for safety are merely words of other people, too. I realized that the ultimate underlying experience of life is a deeply personal one. An unsharable one to a large degree. And language is oft but the distraction that keeps us from seeing and feeling the vast overwhelming nature of the experience of life. We run into a feeling and our brains go form sentences we heard: ‘Oh, that is just XX or YY’, ‘That is okay’, ‘That means nothing’. But if words stop to exist or if you choose not to use words, what is left? Only you and the emotion.
          As to the empirical evidence, I was suggested an interesting idea by a regular commenter on my blog. The concept of non-redundancy and the danger that science poses to it. My interpretation of it is that once you start identifying yourself with patterns that you fit into instead of your unique existence, you start doubting the validity of your existence. Story of my life.

        17. Well, I speak from experience of that drug too, so I never acted cowardly. I was likewise in the jungle, Ecuador not Peru and know of the experiences you speak of. But, you’re right in your particular case to follow the instinct. It seemed to work and you were using it not to escape reality, but, to enhance it in relation to your existence. This is not always the case and people who don’t have the right “intention” can become psychotic which is a terrifying thing.
          However, the question you must ask yourself is that the more complete you become through these experiences the less likely you’d be able to live a harmonious existence in a modern western society which is antithetical to this way of being. There will be a wall at some point. To know that an obstacle will exist is the way of a true warrior my friend.

        18. Oh, I was psychotic alright. My original intention was quite the wish to escape, which is why my trip was so long and painful. Eventually, I learned my lesson.
          You know, these days it would not cross my mind to give up a feeling of wholeness for harmony. I have lived pretty much in solitude for over a year now, without friends, without sex, without everything. I have learned to love it in a way. It gives me the chance to reconstruct myself and then reenter society and shape my new life the way I want it, whilst knowing what I want.
          Thank you for comparing me to a warrior, I feel honored. Have you seen the movie Ghost Dog, by any chance?

        19. You sound as though you’re on the right path at his point. I love my solitude too. It allows me to think and simply be in a way not defined by other people.
          No, I never saw the film Ghost Dog. I must look it up. It’s been interesting talking with you. Regards.

        20. I read this quote by C.G. Jung in his Red Book: ‘I am no longer alone with myself, and I can only artificially recall the scary and beautiful feeling of solitude. That is the shadow side of the fortune of love.’ He wrote it after marriage and 5 kids. Thus, I figure I will cherish the solitude as long as I have it.
          If you do, let me know what you think. Likewise, take care.

        21. But, remember Jung’s advice even when you’re married to “always have that room in the house (the study) that only you have the key for”, a room that’s just for the man of the house where he can retreat to and think, read, and write.

        22. Should I have the fortune of having a house with my family, I will make sure to have two such rooms. One in the cellar and one underneath the roof.

        24. You know, I started looking for it after I posted this. I remember it was a video I watched on youtube, in which she spoke of her experiences in rising to such a prominent position in British politics as a woman.

    3. But Chinese materialism is a relatively new phenomenon is it not? Prior to this, the Chinese were very spiritual people, and going back into Ancient History, you guys had a kind of monotheism. I wouldn’t let the commies define what it is to be Chinese. Remember, their ideology is German in origin.

  16. I read the entire version of Stephen Mc Kenna’s translation of Plotinus’s Enneads some years ago. Plotinus covers a range of the ideas, including “the Good” which the Author mentions in his article, and despite the density, profundity, richness and indeed beauty of his thoughts about the nature of the Divine, it proved one indubitable point to me- namely that the Divine is a truly masculine realm of becoming and being.
    The nature, from memory of this masculinity is very different to what we generally denote by this term. It’s supreme, aloof, wise, and “affronted” which I always thought was quite an amusing concept by having an association with materialism or the created realm, which was a kind of necessary mistake in Plotinus’s Enneads.
    The Church Theologians and Doctors incorporated many of his ideas into the heart of Christianity via Catholicism and Scholasticism, however, I think the ancient world had a better grasp of what it meant to be a virtuous man, meaning a true man, then Christianity did, where these Hellenistic ideas became robbed of their original import through the whole Judaic root inherent in Christianity.

  17. Some of the most Masculine content can be Found in the Old Testament. And Christ even though liberals have turned his image into a Passive hippy is far from that image and is extremely Masculine, Christ’s whole message as the Son of God was to inform Mankind that the way to salvation was through Him, and of course that pissed off a lot of people, but Christ continued teaching anyways even when he knew it would lead to his crucifixion, Christ also taught his followers to arm themselves Luke 22:36, really, the Bible is the guidelines God wanted Man to live in, it’s the perfect example of Masculinity.

    1. Besides, think of the battle he fought – to “shrink the Deity into a span,” as Purcell put it, to suffer in the flesh despite being the Impassible God, to descend even into the pit of Hell in order to liberate the captives. Never was there a better or more crafty warrior.

      1. Legions of angles at his command and yet he endured suffering as a Man, so he would accomplish his Father’s will. Really, God could have done it anyway he wanted, but this was the way he chose, and therefor it was perfect.

      2. Crucifixion was the master-stroke. The ultimate trap for Satan. Through his: “Defeat” he ultimately triumphs throwing down the powers and preparing the world for the 2nd coming where the demise of his enemies are sure.

  19. Enjoyed the article, it seemed like you were just winding up in thoughts and were cut short. Look forward to more.

    1. Absolutely; it was just to set forth my point of view on theology and its relevance to a site for men and masculinity. I hope to be able to keep the ball rolling.

  20. Oh for fuck’s sake.
    Y’all are worse than feminists, sometimes.
    The decline of RoK continues. Sigh.

        3. U. Repo (Man) is Dean Harry Stanton, ancient actor and friend you wouldn’t know. He has his own unique type of theology, not for discussion in polite circles.

        4. I didn’t ask who he is nor do I care. I also don’t understand your statement about me having nothing to say. A simple scan through either my disqus history or the comments section would show I’ve had plenty to say and have more substance than his asinine comment.

        7. No, I wouldn’t.
          …because his name is Harry Dean Stanton.
          And I still have no fucking idea what this means.

        9. Not quite sure what you mean by lapel pin.
          In all honesty, I don’t really care if someone likes an article or not. My peeve are the people who seemingly come in just to say “this article sucks.” without explaining why. You’re certainly entitled to your opinion but when you just leave a post like you originally did, most people are going to question your intent, hence why I called it trolling.

    2. Your 11 fearsome comments make your words mighty, and your trustworthiness secured as a regular member of the site.

      1. No amount of comments make words mighty. They’re mighty or not on their own, if that’s the intent.
        Not a cool kid? Drat. I bet they’ll demand the lapel pin back.

  21. As I scanned down the Comment section I noticed a discussion on Polygamy vs Monogamy and Marriage. It’s been awhile since I’ve read the New Testament because I’m currently making my way through the Old Testament but I do remember as “Toad” mentioned that Christ came to strengthen the Old Law, And all the old Kings in the old Testament had many wives, Particularly Solomon (700 wives, 300 Concubines) also David had Multiple Wives and he was Very dear to God, so is Polygamy bad or has there been a confusion made that Monogamy is the only way to live, I haven’t encountered anything in the Old Testament yet that Damns Polygamy as a sin against God nor have I seen God in the Old Testament Describe it as a sin, Maybe it’s not a Problem?

    1. It’s a tough answer, and I don’t have the time right now. Reply to this comment tomorrow afternoon if I haven’t given an answer to it by then.

      1. That’s Ok, Thank you though :). I was just wondering out loud, I know that God Had a wonderful relationship with the Men in the Old Testament(the Men who Revered God) some of whom had Many, Many wives, and those same Men were judged not by whether they were polygamous or Monogamous but rather if they Acknowledged and Revered God, so I was just thinking maybe it’s not a Problem.

    2. Monogamy was the ideal per the book of Genesis. Like divorce God permitted this due to countervailing circumstances.

  22. I’m extremely pleased that ROK has hired a writer to touch on theological topics and look forward to reading your work.
    As a young man who spent a few years as an atheist and only recently rediscovered his faith (due to a recent tragedy), I’m always looking for new sources to develop a better understanding of theological and philosophical concepts in the classical christian sense.
    P.S. when do you think your site will be up and running?
    Got the message on the homepage that it was under construction.

    1. Hmm. I’ll have to check it out; last I checked the site was working but I’ve heard some people couldn’t access it.
      I pray God will bless and enlighten you as you grow in the Faith.

    2. Pray that you have done your research thoroughly and found one that is most in conformity with the gospel and conformity with scripture.

    3. Apparently there was a quotation mark included in the link, which shouldn’t be there. I’m having trouble accessing the dashboard at the moment. But if you click any of the links at the top, they should point to the actual site pages. Our initial post gives some brief instructions on where to get basic information on Christian spirituality. There’s also my initial article with ROK:

      A Dialogue With A Pious Monk

      1. Thanks for the update. I began reading your introduction post earlier today at lunch, looking forward to future posts.

  23. Modern Christianity of all flavors has been watered down and feminized beyond recognition. Great to see yet another man hasn’t forgotten how it should be.

  25. I presume that’s Saint Jerome in the initial shot. The monastic tradition seems the antithesis to the preceding article on this site about sluts. Hoe does ROK meld these two?

    1. Yup; St. Jerome’s a favourite of mine. I will admit, I did cringe a little to see the article that ran right next to mine.
      But the Lord ate with harlots and tax agents; none of us are so good as He, and there probably aren’t too many fellas on this site so bad as harlots and tax agents. So, God be praised if any minds may be turned towards Him.

      1. Bet Jesus would have a blast eating with Slut Walkers and IRS collectors. Just hope he has a stomach for Frapuccinos and Chipotle burritos. A culinary aberration.

        2. If there’s a genuine example of white cultural appropriation, it’s Chipotle. What I recall from eating there, it’s basically a tortilla with chicken, rice, and too much cilantro. For about $6.

        3. Thanks for the chuckle. I actually think Jesus would have treated them like the Pharisees, for they are the Pharisees of our day. Jesus ate with sinners who were not fundamentally wicked people – people who were open to repentance, who were open to something better, but lacked the strength under the old law. On the other hand, our Slut Walkers and Tax Collectors are only too sure that they are bringing justice to the world, and have consciously rejected everything good with a very firm impenitence and hubris. I think our Lord would sooner pop them in the microwave.
          But, I’m not the Lord, so perhaps I’m too cruel and unforgiving towards them.

        4. Also you must consider, at least the prostitutes back then might have been in it out of sheer necessity. Still morally questionable, but they gotta do what’s necessary to survive. Slut Walkers, meh, not so much. It’s more of doing it because it’s cool and hip. As for Jesus, I don’t know if events like this made him a socialist, but it sure made him a social catalyst. Not to mention he was a sort of hipster who was, you know, actually hip.

        5. Yes, that’s a good point about the purely voluntary character of their approval of sin.
          As to Jesus being a Socialist, I would say He is quite opposed to it. He made many statements and told many parables, that depend upon the principle of private ownership of the means of production. He believed in charity; Socialism actually abolishes charity, because it forces extensive redistribution of wealth, to the point where the people have little surplus from which to make charitable gifts.

  26. Even though I don’t have a belief in a deity, the more I analyze things, as it turns out, I’m an atheist conservative. And one thing I still see eye to eye with the religious crowd is the pursuit of discipline and order, like how monks operate, whether Franciscan or Buddhist. In fact I have added “lodging at a monastery” in my bucket list, along with visiting Mt. Athos in Greece, home to 20+ Orthodox monasteries, and which has been dedicated to the Virgin Mary, ergo women are excluded.

    1. Strange that something can be devoted to a woman and exclude women at the same time. I think it could be done differently.
      Mary does occupy an almost quasi-deity and deity status among the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox.

      1. I can’t speak for the Orthodox, but Catholics claim not to worship but venerate Mary, but all the fuzz around manifestations of her like Guadalupe or Lourdes beg to differ. To be fair, if you take away that element, I think Catholics do seem to acknowledge Mary’s role as the Mother of Jesus. After all, she was promised to Joseph, and if the Google searches don’t lie, she must have been between 13 and 15 when God came upon her through the Holy Spirit in the suspicious shape of a white dove. That can also explain why Mount Athos venerates her that much. As for not letting women in, it’s probably because no woman will ever reach Mary in the moral realm. A bit misogynistic, true, but with feminism rampant, can we really blame them? If anything, they risk dumb women taking sexy selfies all over the place.

        1. I think we mistake the veneration of Mary for worship, because we are now far removed from the society that expressed its veneration even of eminent personages with rather grand gestures of public esteem, with noble garments, with crowns and diadems and scepters. The saints have been taken to an heavenly glory, and they rule with God as partakers of His own divine nature. This is the destiny of all who shall be saved, but the saints enjoy it even now. The Blessed Virgin merits the highest veneration of any creature, for it was from this creature that the Creator took His own, Incarnate nature. She is the creation’s offering to the Creator. A more traditional society understood how to pay a sublime and great veneration to such a woman, without mistaking it for the worship due to God alone. Traditional Catholics (and Orthodox) still do.
          I laughed out loud at the thought of slatternly ladies making duck-faces at their phones in every nook and cranny of the Holy Mountain. The main reason for keeping them out, is so the monks will not have the opportunity to fornicate; but the elimination of duck-faced selfies alone is worth the severity of the precept.

      2. The Blessed Virgin is acknowledged as being “the frontier between the creature and the Creator,” because of her unique role in providing the created substance of Christ’s Humanity to Him in His Incarnation from her. Because His flesh, with which He merited everything related to our Redemption, has come from her, and because she nourished Him at her own breasts, and, as it were, offered Him up by her maternal consent to God as a propitiation for our sins, she is regarded as being intimately united with Christ – Who is the Second Person of the Trinity and the God-Man – more than any created being.
        For this reason she is hailed as the highest of all creations, whether heavenly or earthly. We believe that God has prepared a place for all the elect at His right hand on the throne of glory, where He has been seated in our very nature as a Man. The Scriptures say that God wills for the elect to judge even the angels, and to exercise the dominion of his kingdom and priesthood with Him, making us a royal priesthood in Christ. None have a greater share in this dignity than the Blessed Virgin, and she is recognized to have certain prerogatives by virtue of her divine maternity and role as mother of every Christian and of the Church, since we are all members of Christ’s Body, which is the Church.
        For the practicing Catholic (and Orthodox), it is very clear that the Blessed Virgin is not God; we never mistake her for God. But we do acknowledge her to participate in the governance of the universe, and especially in the life and governance of the Church, with a direct, divine and maternal authority second only to God. God chooses to administer His governance of the world through the angelic choirs and other blessed spirits, including the elect, His saints; this is most fully expressed in the Blessed Virgin, through whom every grace has come to mankind, because through Her Christ, the Author and Perfecter of our Faith, and the provider and winner of all graces, has come. She is the matrix, by whom God chose to be Incarnate. Therefore we call her the intermediatrix of all graces, even the co-redemptrix (in a very limited sense), and we hail her, “as, after God, our only sure refuge and deliverance.” She is the mother of Christ, Who is God, and therefore (in that sense only) Mother of God. Through baptism, I am a member of Christ, and therefore I recognize baptism to be the womb of the Virgin, and I own her as my own mother. Every Christian must acknowledge this; it is a clear syllogism; if we are become members of Christ, we have the Virgin for our mother. How can we fail to honour our mother, and the mother of Him Who gave the command: “honor thy father and mother?” Great is the mystery of her divine maternity, which raised so high as to touch the divinity, and to become the ladder by which He would descend to men! Rightly we honor her with encomiums and dignity that are second only to God’s. In a certain sense on can speak more of the Virgin, for she is somewhat intelligible, but the mouth is stopped before the utter holiness and mystery of God. Before the ineffable God, I find myself hushed at the dread sanctity of Him Who cannot be expressed by any craft of the tongue; before the virgin, my initial amazement gives way to effusive praise! Ἄξιον έστὶν μακαρίζειν σὲ τὴν Θεοτόκον! Praised be the God Who has so made His habitation amongst men!

        1. You see that is the issue I have with their view on Mary. Who a righteous woman was obedient to God her Rock and savior and being as you said the means by which the Christ is given flesh and who was a faithful wife and a loving mother is given this much glory. The many titles and hymns devoted to her make her the equivalent of Christ as if she herself wore the crown of thorns is called the only way to Christ, Savioress, portrayed as a shepherdess as well as being called Queen of heaven. Icons of her decorated with the most wondrous of jewels. Her statues paraded through the street with a crown on her head with hymns featuring her. At least with mary I am seeing no difference with Veneration and worship. If they are indistinguishable then something is seriously wrong.

        2. What I’m saying, is that they are very easily distinguishable to anyone who has not been raised in an atmosphere of egalitarianism. Even human beings used to go around with these kinds of honors.
          Do you know of any other way that Christ came, except by His mother? What then is so odd about acknowledging that we all come to know Christ through her, or not at all? That she is His mother, and ours? That she is the paradigm of God’s humanity? That she is the tabernacle of the All-Holy, the true Ark of the Covenant, containing the True Manna and the True Law? When we hymn her womb as “more spacious than the heavens,” because it contained the uncontainable God, we are actually witnessing to the dignity of Christ. We are extolling the wisdom and wonder of God’s ways. We are marvelling at the wisdom of His hidden plans; we are expressing our adoration – our literal worship – for the God Who chose to come and become containable in the womb of a mortal woman. What would she be, if not for Christ? But because of Christ – oh, she is very great, indeed. She is the “Weaver of the Royal Purple” – i.e., the source of that Body and Blood, by which Christ would redeem the world.
          Men would not touch the Ark, and went before it with dreadful fear, and with hymns, and decorated it with gold and sacred imagery and fine sculpture. And it was just a wooden box that contained holy things. How much more honor should we pay to the living Ark of the New Covenant, who gave her nature, consent, love, cooperation, to the Holy One Himself? She deserves far more dread and awe and respect and veneration than the dead and inanimate ark of the Old Covenant.

    2. I read a comment earlier that so called women ‘leaders’ rule in an ‘administrative’ capacity at most. Men rule by nature and this by default alone. Women can only ‘administer’ by default at best, not rule by default. A woman never leads man through uncharted space, nor does she pioneer or deliver prophecy. Prophets were and are men.
      ‘Churchianity’ formes and evolves after the prophet passes. An Earthly emasculated bitch spirit then takes over the prophet’s followers and legions and tells the men to shut up and stop putting forth new prophecy. No upstart ‘new’ prophecy allowed anymore and the body of the church becomes the bitch of the state, yoked under the church biddy’s whip. The warning goes out ”Do not add a word to scripture”. You’re now on bitch lockdown and no new revelations on how to conduct ritual can be added.
      Then . . the godforesakingly excruciating henpecking commences . . ”paaalk-puk-puk-puk” (the henhouse church biddies coo’ing) . . and no new visions or guideposts to drive man foreward out of the bitch doldrums. With the death of a prophet or visionary, the den mothers come out like circling hyenas, the ones with six pack tits of course. If even an original word remains of the true prophet by then, it is covered up, masked by the den odor of the wild female game animal.
      L Ron hubbard was a visionary and in life was an interesting fellow, but now only the letigious henpeckers remain. It’s best speculation what Christ was really like in person peering back through the dogma. He carried whips and kicked money changers in the nuts many feel. I myself feel elated at the thought of that so I must therefore be getting warm to the true spirit.

  27. I’m very pleased to learn that you are to be a regular author. For some time I’ve dropped in at RoK, scanned the headings, sighed and then moved on without reading more. Your arrival will make me look more closely in future.

  28. It is truly unfortunate that Christianity is so heavily feminized nowadays; it was quite the opposite in the 1950’s and prior. Those who have a strong religious conviction and defend it fiercely, even when their beliefs are unpopular and controversial, are very masculine and admirable in my book. Unfortunately, there aren’t too many American Christian men who fit this description, and hence some in the manosphere have lost enthusiasm for organized religion. I was raised Catholic like the author of this article and am still one nominally, but I’ve become more and more disillusioned with the church over the past few years due its progressiveness and for other personal reasons. Very recently, I made up my mind that I am going to read the Bible on my own, cover-to-cover for the very first time and develop my own interpretation of its contents, free from modern progressive influence and corruption. At the moment, I am in Genesis 27. I highly applaud any men who take an interest in theology and the Bible, for it is very worthwhile.

    1. I agree….. the trap the libtards have set for Catholicism is their continuous harping about the clerical abuse scandals, which were terrible, but still a small part of the overall organisation. If the church makes any comment on any subject they use the scandals to stifle any constructive debate. They complain about the churches power yet they want to substitute one set of morals for their new shiny version that goes totally against masculinity and leadership and leads to the mediocrity described in the article.

      1. And all signs are it truly was a trap set by them. On the one hand, Gramschi encouraged all the leftist lunatics to infiltrate the priesthood and the schools. Then, thirty years later, these leftist, homosexual priests are abusing young men (it was a gay crisis, not so much a pedophile crisis) while the newly-minted psychiatrists are charging a fortune for therapy and guaranteeing “cures,” suggesting that they simply be transferred. The bishops trust this “professional” opinion because the profession had not yet been discredited, and then this, too, blows up in their faces.
        Lying in wait, are hordes of leftist lawyers who are only too ready to sue, sue, sue. And a leftist press ready to report the scandal ad nauseam, DESPITE the fact that the abuse rate in the Church was smaller than in public organizations like the schools, boy scouts, mainline Protestant groups, etc., which were almost never mentioned in the news. The whole thing angers me.

        1. Religion is the cornerstone of a civilization, in the west this is Christianity, so they continuously feminized the protestant churches and hit the catholics with this scandal as a way to destroy western civilization and impose Marxism

    2. I encourage you to read the Bible cover to cover. Just be forewarned, there are parts that are very difficult to get through in a cover to cover reading and won’t mean much to you. The book of Leviticus for example can be very difficult to read through. Individual Psalms can also be very difficult if you try to read 6 or 7 at a time. On the other hand, the Bible is also a book of Jewish history which I find very interesting. And you are doing yourself a disservice if you “skim” through the book of Proverbs. That book alone is worth significant studying to the modern man. Then, understand that the “New Testament” was written in one generation whereas the “Old Testament” was written over a 2,000 year time span.
      Forgive me, I can go on and on about the Bible.

    3. Just FYI, I was raised atheist. I converted to generic Christianity at 15. I read some history, and realized the first Christians were not Protestants, but had to be either Catholics or Orthodox. Initially, I thought the Orthodox had the better claim; after learning Greek, I was able to read some Greek Fathers and Saints, and their writings on the papacy and the Immaculate Conception. This, and a deeper knowledge of history and doctrine, convinced me that the Catholics were right. So, I’m a Catholic.
      You’re right that the Church is in crisis; I attend Mass at an SSPX chapel; my sympathies are with the sedevacantist position.

  29. 1 Corinthians 6:9 KJV
    “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor
    abusers of themselves with mankind,”
    “Effeminate” = Strong’s G3120 malakos
    3120. malakos mal-ak-os’
    of uncertain affinity; soft, i.e. fine (clothing); figuratively, a
    catamite:–effeminate, soft.
    “Catamite” = n. A boy who has a sexual relationship with a man.

  30. I like it Aurelius. It is easy to be discouraged when when the prayers sound effeminate and sappy religious pictures abound; and when your fellow Catholics hardly inspire you. But that is not what true Christianity is. Thanks for the article!

  31. I have been struck by the number of women who, upon a breakup, resort to some evil shit – I have a few exes who, even though they became much better off next to me, decided to jam a knife in me on the way out the door. I have seen this happen to other men I know as well. The attitude seems to be “Sure, you gave me the moon, but where are my stars?”
    This lack of gratitude/meanness in so many women is divorced from spiritual integrity: forgiveness, taking a high road, etc. Their revengeful actions make them poor spiritual leaders.
    Inevitably, actions speak louder than words.

  32. I am no feminist but the obvious reason why religion has been a manly activity is because women were shut out of it. Having said that, do modern women add anything useful to modern theology? Generally, no. They are too busy tearing down 6000 years of civilization.

    2. Eminently true. And we see how great the Patriarchy is in this: that during Patriarchy, even some women managed to be great saints, theologians and mystics. But without Patriarchy, even the men are insipid.

  33. My brief foray into Christianity when I was younger was marked by holding hands in prayer meetings while we prayed about our “feelings”, huge services for young people which were glorified social gatherings, and gay ass Christian Rock music. This is one reason why I’m an atheist. More recently however, during trips to Europe, I was impressed by visits to vast medieval cathedrals, tiny shrines, and pilgrimage places like Monseratt and Fatima. The author is right.. There is a disconnect between the old religion and the new “sensitive” way of doing things , and although I never thought about it, it’s probably done more to drive people away from religion than lack of faith or church scandals.

    1. Yes, it is at this point a bit of common wisdom amongst traditionalists, that the Devil has realized he does more damage with “soft” persecution – i.e., eroding authentic Faith with kitsch and fluff – than he ever did with hard persecution. When the Faith is undermined and banalized, the faithful lose their heart and will to fight; when the faith is openly attacked, the faithful are rallied and a fire is lit. This last persecution of rainbows and marshmallows is by far the most devastating in all of history.

  34. Glad this article came up on ROK, and also somewhat ironic. I am Buddhist and working on a three month vow of total chastity, and visiting this site, as entertaining and true as it is, never helps with control of the passions.

  35. Hello, RoK … An old friend here who use to post on these site with great fandom not too long ago, and I have to say to every single one of you, America is the epicentre of all that is evil in humanity. Sure ISIS is evil but America takes the cake, America represents the darkness of humanity, waging relentless war on all that is good in man, his family life has been scattered through anti-family legislation, his mind has been sullied through pornography, his eyes have been lustfully tempted everyday by provocative whore-like fashions in which women take no responsibility and finally his soul scarred. America is the darkness, Russia is the light.

    1. I would discourage you from thinking any particular nation is “the light.” But, I do often wonder whether or not the USA is the Whore of Babylon!

      1. When I say the light, I do not mean an absolutist sense as if Russia is not composed of its share of whores, avaricious types and general perverts. I mean the very fact that Tsarist symbolism and the Russian Orthodox Church has been resurrected from the dead like Lazarus is a miracle. Bolshevism killed Russia and let’s not pretend as if we don’t know who was behind the mask of Bolshevism (their names are facts of history). Russia has arisen, it has a mission which is antithetical to the United States, it stands for everything our fallen society doesn’t stand for and because of that to varying degrees, Russia represents the light in political terms. International Finance Jewry, Sunni Islam headquartred in Saudi Arabia backed by the military industrial complex of America will do all in its power to stop this modern version of Byzantium. The old enemies are there again, the Turks, the Arabs and more. This conflict is spiritual in essence and all of you who believe in God, the family and decency are by association enemies of America as America is an enemy of you.

        1. I largely agree. Our Lady at Fatima specifically stated that Russia was God’s chosen instrument to punish the world – first, by allowing the errors of Russia to spread across the globe (in Communism), but after the consecration to the Immaculate Heart, promising Russia would convert and be the instrument of God’s wrath in a more righteous sense.

  36. Dear brother Aurelius,
    1) Could you please spend some time praying for aborted children who were conceived thanks to dating advice offered on Return of Kings ? This also includes children who were aborted through morning after pills and, also according to some people, by birth control pills who might work as an abortifacient.
    2) Could you please post an article on Rwturn of Kings describing Church’s position on fornication, abortion and contrception ?
    3) Are you sure you have been called by Christ ? From the way you are introduced, it seems it is “judgment, authority and strength of the Patriarchy” you are looking for.

    1. I have tailored my message to the men of ROK. My calling from God is not to be a commenter at ROK, but to be a monk. I make time in that vocation, to offer thoughts to men; it seems to me that the manosphere, though suffering from moral defects (as does essentially everything in Modernity), is a place where men are becoming “heretics” to the modern world. And a man who has become an heretic to the modern world, is a man who is on the road to becoming an orthodox son of God’s household.
      I do indeed plan on discussing the Church’s teaching on sexual issues, and have never shied away from doing so in the comments. I pray for all men, and strive to make reparations for the sins of all men. Reaching out to the men of ROK is one of the best ways to do that.
      Since you have offered your advice, I will offer you some. The Faith is not something to be passive-aggressive about. If you have something to say, say it in Christian conviction.

  37. Thank you for the article and its basic spirit I totally agree with. Currently reading G. K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy and it isn’t an easy road. May I recommend some other books for your consideration?
    The Art of Worldy Wisdom, by Baltasar Gracian
    Wild at Heart, by John Eldridge
    Why Men Hate Going to Church, by David Murrow
    No More Christian Nice Guy, by Paul Coughlin
    The Masculine Power of Christ or Christ Measured as a Man, by Jason Noble Pierce
    And though an evangelical Christian, I have found gems in The Analects of Confucious and Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching. Though not overtly Christian, I have also truly enjoyed An Iron Will, by Orison Swett Marden.

    1. I also enjoy the Tao. We Catholics speak of something called “natural religion” – i.e., the religious search and drive which is natural to man, but which obviously falls short of finding the Truth of revealed religion. I have heard many Christian thinkers describe the Tao as an entirely inerrant work of natural religion. It’s been a long time since I read the whole thing through, but that was my impression of it, as well.

  38. I don’t understand why universities have dropped the study of rhetoric, theology, and the ancient classics. In my university it was hidden in the Communications department. Now it’s in Media Studies. When i told people i studied Communications they said, ‘Oh so will you be a social media consultant, or something?’ No, I was studying Cicero, Paine, Burke, etc. Sadly no one reads this stuff anymore. I’m a girl, and I do admit that men are more intellectual than women, but when they don’t even read it, I win by default. I don’t even want to win, it’s just sad when I couldn’t even talk about these things with any man. They could help me understand it. Someone has to carry on this knowledge, though. I would like to go back to girly things. Rhetoric was once part of the seven liberal arts in classical antiquity.

    1. Rhetoric is usually grouped under Communications or some such silly discipline, these days, because there has been a movement to reject the “old rhetoric” (the Classical discussion of rhetoric as the art of presenting truth persuasively) in favor of the “new rhetoric” (a novel approach which essentially amounts to “propaganda” – i.e., abandoning truth and persuasion as inherently hegemonic, patriarchal, oppressive, polarizing ideals, and stating that every thing we do is a form of communication… the new approach, is to create common ground and agreement by hidden, “soft” means of influencing opinion that do not resort to polemics and reasoned argumentation).
      I would be very surprised if your school does not have a stand-alone Classics department… though, of course, that would mean having to read them in Greek and Latin. Did you want to study Classics, or Rhetoric specifically?

      1. You’re right, in retrospect maybe I should have studied in the Classics department, but at the time I thought that at least Communications could maybe sound a bit more employable. The classes I took were a really peculiar combination of speeches by the great Greek orators followed by Marxist/feminist readings. I also studied Sociology and we were taught that Marx is the Father of sociology. I accepted it at the time because I was young but now it is ridiculous to think that Marx is the Father of the entire study of society. It makes no sense. It really puts your mind in a hamster cage.

  39. Christianity was a strength while Europe was is in its ascendancy and sought to impose itself on the world, but it has since become a source of guilt and offers no moral defense against the massive alien influx we are now suffering in our decline.

  40. “Men are more spiritual than women. Every human society has acknowledged the Earth Mother and the Sky Father. Woman is down, into the earth, grounded, materialistic. Man is up, into the sky, dreamy, creative, spontaneous, seeking that invisible God. It is a travesty and oppression of male nature to claim women are more spiritual than men.
    …
    “Bede Griffiths told me the most important thing I ever learned in my life. The discord in this life, said Bede, stems primarily from the fact that people tend to confuse psychic phenomena with spiritual phenomena. We must learn to distinguish the psychic from the spiritual, advised Bede, or we will spend our lives wallowing in a psychic swamp.
    “Psychic events, I discovered, are mind events, ego events, arts like psychology and astrology and palmistry, which relate to what shape my ego is in today – what are the stars predicting for me today? – ego stuff.
    “Spiritual events, on the other hand, are beyond the ego, beyond the sights and sounds and visualizations and verbalizations we use to construct our world. … Psychic events are sensual; spiritual events are outside the senses. [P]sychic events are essentially feminine and spiritual events are overwhelmingly masculine. Women who break their minds out of the psychic swamp are few and far between. There are measurable biological, psychological and social reasons for this perceptual discrepancy and much of this book is devoted to examining these reasons.
    “… generally, women confuse their psyche (ego) with their spirit; they look for the “goddess within” and blur the boundary between the two realms. This fact constitutes an awesome difference between the sexes with profound implications for human society. When a woman is talking about “spirituality”, she is almost always referring to psychic phenomena.”
    – quoted from Rich Zubaty, What Men Know that Women Don’t: First published 1993 (latest revision 2011), this classic book examines the male character of true spirituality in detail.

  42. I’m so glad religion is dying out if this is the kind of attitude towards women it has.

    1. Women have contributed precisely fuck all to theology BECAUSE THEY DON’T GIVE A SHIT.
      Go tip a fedora, faggot

      1. You so called ‘Christians’ make Jesus look bad. You should be ashamed of yourselves for spreading hate in the name of the One who loves all.

  44. Excellent sign for ROK. I visit this site for articles on masculinity and the war on men, not for pickup articles. I don’t deny that I fail in many struggles, but I long to do better, and faith being brought into this space is most welcome.

  46. As a fellow Catholic I’ve enjoyed what you have previously written here; looking forward to reading more of your writing both here and on your inchoate blog. It’s nice to find a fellow Catholic with very similar sentiments on the Faith and masculinity. My melancholic temperament needs more of this stuff to correct the years of Blue Pill indoctrination.
    This was an awesome article. I’m glad you’re going to be contributing more here.
    Count me in as one of those men you mentioned in the comments your hoping to reach (I’m currently a parishioner of an FSSP parish and in May will have 9 children).

  47. “Moreover, pleasure itself is a stronger impulse than is unhappiness, for the lack of pleasure is a mere privation. Wherefore, according to the Philospher (Ethic. vii, 7), he is rightly called an effeminate man, who withdraws himself from the Good because a lack of pleasure disappoints him, yielding as it were to a weak movement.”
    I can’t seem to fully grasp what is meant in this passage. Can anyone elaborate?
    Otherwise great article. It actually made me realize how weak modern man is at controlling his lower self and how that’s one of the foundational problems of modern society. “Masturbator” is a very fitting insult because it implies both the inability to get laid as well as an inability to control ones base desires, both of which are hallmarks of masculinity.

  48. This obsession with mystical religion is holding men back. These stories about God aren’t based on observations about reality, and anything that substitutes reason with some sort of supernatural faith is damaging to man’s best weapon – his thinking mind.
    The fact is, the most advanced philosophy available today was created by a woman. That philosophy is Objectivism, and the woman is Ayn Rand. I’ll post about it shortly.

  50. Mr. Pertinebit !
    I have an extremely important message and article idea on which I want you and perhaps another founding member to take a look at. The general idea revolves around the following message :
    ,,The subject recalls general sexual pleasure, that in our instances fall directly under the gateway to many problems, under the one word : women.There are a many pointers in the Bible where we are exposed to numerous examples as to why it is a bad thing to give in to sexual pleasure seeking. The most profound reference I have found is in the seventh commandment – ,,You shall not commit adultery.” Seeing is how we men face multiple problems ( waste of time, money ) just from engaging in the direction of women, there are things we waste as repercussions
    of interacting ( falling into temptations ) with women ( going away from the Holy Spirit / Guardian Angel ).
    Other entries revolve around the waste of the man’s seed – reference to Onan, even one Romanian Orthodox Priest once sustained the idea ( quite well actually ) that indulging in sexual practices over limit, is damaging to the nervous system – Father Arsenie Boca. The general direction of the idea is to give readers a glimpse in the Scripture and perhaps understand that even sexual pro-activeness has a toll to be taken on ones’ mind and ones’ health.”
    Regards,

Comments are closed.