Two of my chief aims with my articles on ROK, are to give glory to God, and to aptly describe theological truths in terms suited to men. Today’s article, I hope, will do both by touching upon a theme suitable both to the season and to this website: Christ the King. While this topic has many particularly Catholic meanings, today I use a broader brush.
“Patriarchy” is much maligned in our days, despite being the ennobling and civilizing force that it is; while many men have shaken free from much of the bogus propaganda against masculinity, some men remain sympathetic to complaints against the source of patriarchy—God, the King and All-Father. The Feast of Christ the King comes near the end of the Liturgical year, on the last Sunday in October, emphasizing that the divine Kingdom which will be fully realized on Earth at the Parousia, exists even now and has rights over the world.
The world is in a disastrous state at present; the noblest and manliest principles in society have been besieged with special ferocity for five centuries now, at the hands of a revolutionary action against legitimate authority. Whether of King, Priest, Husband or Father, perverse revolutionaries wish to abolish the offices of manly headship; we have inherited a culture almost entirely lacking them, in any authentic form.
Men Must Lead In Private And Public Life
A woman flourishes only under the protection and supervision of a man. Women generally lack a certain self-sufficiency, and their beliefs and sentiments are influenced largely by their emotional ties to others. Men can more easily stick to reason and principle despite pressures and attachment. A man can trust a woman to be sensible only so far, nearer or farther based on her quality; but in the end, a man understands that he cannot, must not, rely on a woman to stay the course indefinitely, piloting herself by the ship of reason.
He must provide an attractive and compelling pre-eminence in himself, to which she may uplift her gaze and give her loyalty. Then, when her inner resources falter, her devotion will have been trained towards him habitually. In a good man, the effort so to acclimate a woman to himself has her benefit equally in mind as his own, and both in accord with reason and justice.
Carrie Nation: “Bible-Believing” Church Lady, or Herald of the Dawning, Satanic Age?
The concept of “game” hits upon this perennial truth about the sexes. Some men use “game” contrary to reason and nature; I think that, so long as “game” puts a man in touch with the facts of nature, grants him a more masculine comportment, and imparts a sensitivity to his role and responsibilities as a man, a natural leader of women, it is a good thing.
In this sense, what we call “game,” our great-grandfathers called simple horse-sense. Every good husband should give his wife the gift of a stalwart but benevolent leader. He loves his wife, but knows that she neither wants nor is able to be free from the ennobling guidance and prudent protection of her lord husband. He must be the man to whom her instincts are trained, and he should strive to be worthy of that position; he must manage her emotions wisely and manfully. Certainly he must not meet her emotional needs in the manner she insists upon, which is likely not only to be wrong, but even to be a (perhaps subconsciously) calculated attempt at probing him for weakness, or at self-justification.
Masculinity Is An Analogue Of Divine Sovereignty
In one sense, we can say that God is “beyond gender.” But in another, equally true sense, masculinity, maleness, paternity, are qualities more likened unto the divinity, whereas femininity, womanliness and motherhood are qualities more likened unto the whole order of creation. This is because masculinity is the active and fecundating principle; femininity is the passive and fecundated principle.
The more a thing is ruled and acted upon, the more feminine it is; the more it is (authentically) active, the more masculine. God is Actus Purus, Pure Act, pure Fatherhood; He is the Father “from whom all fatherhood in heaven and earth derives its name,” of which our manhood is a proportioned manifestation. Creation exists along a spectrum of being more or less feminine, more or less masculine, in a sense, as it aligns with act or potential.
No, I’m not saying that every man has a “feminine side,” but I am saying that every man, in relation to His Maker, is a subject, is ruled, is in a dependent position, and that this is more analogous to the feminine than the masculine. But of course, as a man, the particular nature of his sex is an analogue of the Fatherhood, the Kingdom, the Priesthood, of God.
In future articles I’ll talk more about this, and about how—in Christianity, at least—the spiritual life is described as a direct participation in God… i.e., how God helps the creature to become more manly, more excellent, more free, more strong, more active, more like Himself by participation in Himself. The spiritual life is a deifying, and therefore a masculinizing, process. And the services for many of the female saints praise precisely this element of their character: that they became more manly than many men.
“O God, Who, amongst other wonders of Thy power, hast conferred the martyr’s triumph even upon the fragile sex; grant propitiously, that we who remember the birth unto eternal life of Blessed Agatha, Thy virgin and martyr, may advance towards Thee by her example.” – For the Commemoration of St. Agatha
One also sees that God has given men a special insight into His relationship to the creation, by virtue of our intermediary position as male creatures; we have something of the ruler and something of the subject within ourselves. Our experience as the masters of womankind gives us some insight into God’s experience with all of us; our experience as subjects of God gives us insight into a woman’s subordination (and, often enough, inconstancy).
This should make us better subjects of God, and better rulers of women and society. Sometimes I find men drawing near to the Red Pill who still have flatly immature ideas about God and atheism—ideas fully supported by the same propagandists that brought us Feminism, Socialism, etc. Often this involves objections to God’s rigidity, His intolerance, His use of force, His jealous mastery that brooks no rival.
But these are the complaints by which a feminist derides the actually beneficial qualities of patriarchy. “Red Pill” men usually see the crisis caused by the absence of male influence, but male influence is a shade of the Divine: the Supreme Masculine, the forceful vindicator of Good and punisher of evil, from Whom there could be no appeal. If society needs a king, if it needs a priest, if it needs husbands and fathers, let it look to Him from Whom these offices proceed. If we wonder why the world rejects patriarchy and authority, I will tell you: it is because it first rejected the High King Himself.
Christ Crowns Holy Roman Emperor St. Henry II, while angels bestow sword and scepter upon him, and sainted clergy support him.
The Feast of Christ the King stands at the center of the Church’s reaction to an aggressive liberalism. It came in the wake of centuries of ideological and military revolutions in the West—Protestantism, Humanism, Atheism, Republicanism, Democracy, Socialism and Communism. The Church took pains to affirm that God had rights not only over the spiritual realm and the Church, but over all society, over all men, over all nations, which absolutely trump any imagined “human right” formed in abstraction from the principles of Truth and Justice.
To attempt to establish a system of “rights” abstracted from what is Right, is to aid the rebellion of infirmity and folly against Strength and Wisdom. And this is why our times are literally perverse (from Latin perverto, “turn all the way around”), that is, upside-down; Democracy and Republicanism exalt demagogues and mobs over justice itself; Feminism inverts the natural dynamic of the sexes; Socialism and Social Marxism demand the forfeiture of the fruits of a society’s creators to its venal consumers; the gay agenda attempts to equate health and fecundity with disease and sterility. The theme is the same: Righteous, Manly Authority is bad; it wants to stop us from voting for free dildos.
I invite men to reflect on the great right and dignity of being a man, of belonging to the sex upon whose brow lordliness and mastery sit by right. I encourage them to reflect on what obligations and duties this involves; to reflect upon what a man must strive to be, if he is worthy of the title, man.
I encourage them to reflect on the limitations of the fairer sex, and how we should strive to purge any womanliness from our character, and to grow manlier, more like God, by virtue. If we value authority, justice, truth, mastery and excellence in the created order, let us direct our gaze to the supreme Masculine, the supreme Origin of all Fatherhood, and to the highest of all Kings. To reject Him, especially for His quality of inflexible dominion, is to reject a particularly masculine quality of our own souls, and to be allies of the Revolution against noble patriarchy.
Reconciliation with the principle of righteous authority – rather than “democratic fairness” – is an indispensable precedent to a true return of kings.
Read More: Why We Need To Fight For The Patriarchy
Ah. It seems that with each day that passes, Christianity makes me chuckle a little more. That zest, that absolute certainty, that meticulously thought-out framework of ideas. I see it as quite a feat. Christians rightfully claim that Christianity inspired some of the greatest works of art. Just look at the picture of that somehow tired and yet weirdly serene looking guy in the top with the phallic scepter.
I myself am convinced that Christianity is based on sublimination of sexual energy into the higher energies of being. That intensity of the spiritual experience and encouragement of celibacy is an indicator of that. To look at Christian inspired art is to have a sexual experience without fucking. Truly magnificent.
Hey, how about another aspect: Woman experiencing leadership through birth of children.
Although I am not a believer, I am glad you write here. There is something that puts me off about it, and yet I do not want to miss it, as there is something equally fascinating about your texts. Ah, the beautiful shades of life.
All beliefs, scientific, philosophical and religious, come down to faith. Only Christianity admits this and is comfortable with it.
Technically, Christianity can not admit anything, as it is not a person. But I have met both types of Christians here on ROK. Most seem to be quite dogmatic and trying to push Jesus’ dick right down your throat to receive his godly seed.
Actually true Christians can admit to faith. Belief without proof. In fact, my faith depends on lack of scientific proof. Can’t be done. I’m good with that.
Well, what is an actual true Christian? Is there some kind of authority who defines what that is? All I see is one old man practicing Christianity and doing it humbly. But for each of those Gandalfs, you have ten little zealous narcissists using their newfound certainty to lecture others.
But yeah, we two were engaged in this kind of debate recently with that scientific religionist and I respect your viewpoint, although I reject Christianity.
The gift of faith is something you have to discover on your own I’m afraid.
How others run around who haven’t discovered it act, I can not account for, you just have to ignore them. When you see the real thing you’ll know it.. Most “true believers” in anything are anything but a true believer.
Oh, never worry, I am quite confident in my vague spirituality right now. If I mock Christianity, it is no longer an act of intense hatred. More a mild contempt. It does not translate to humble practicioners, so I still love you.
Slainte mhor agad
I was not aware you speak Klingon.
Most would call it such. I just say it’s my grandfather speaking. Silly Gaels, with our incomprehensible tongue.
I think I have some Celtic roots, so I kinda like the sound of it. I think that in my 5th past life from now, I was a warrior mage who defended his tribe against the ‘reforming’ troops of Christianity. Maybe that is why I feel so much vitriol.
Laudetur Iesus Christus.
Humble righteous amusement. Very skillful. My respects, sir.
Didn’t know you spoke Gaelic. I’m glad to see it here.
Grandfather spoke it (emigrated to American after WW2), father did passingly well, I can enough, heh.
Scotch Gaelic?
In aeternum!
ht: http://www.fisheaters.com/letterstyle.html
I’m going to have to have my wife and kids start using that. Thanks
I remember when I was just like you. I said such foul, immature things as well. You will grow up. You will find Christ. He will make you a man and you will forgive your father. You will have a Father in Heaven and you will know peace and joy even in the midst of persecution and suffering. You will come to realize that you are a sinner just like everyone else, and your mild contempt for everyone else also applies to yourself, yet you will find that confession, forgiveness, prayer, communion, fellowship, and righteousness are the the solution to your sins. You will stop your empty complaining and your beliefs will stop whirling with the winds of doctrine. You will find the rock and build a life on that firm ground and you will glorify God and he will glorify you in the end.
Very poetic. I like it, for some inexplicable reason. It also makes me want to puke.
Scot Gaelic, yes. Scotch is a drink. Heh.
Impressive writing and argument. I think this just turned up the quality of RoK another degree. This article has made me think and I will continue to ponder. Thanks to the author who appears to have put his head and heart into writing this.
Bravo Aurelius. Another wonderful article.
There are a lot of men (and women) in the US and Europe who would like to return to the patriarchy, but we are disunited. Therefore, it doesn’t make much progress beyond discussions on social media.
My hope is that this “fountain of patriarchy” will serve as the unifying principle that men can rally behind to build an effective movement.
I hope so. All we can do is recall people’s attentions to the city ruins, and to her foundations overgrown with weeds. Perhaps if we start with this, we can move on to rebuilding the site.
The problem with wise husbands having domain over their wives like God having wise domain over his subjects is based on the idea that all husbands are perfect and manly just like God in the first place. Also, the problem, even in cases of “Godly husbands”, they’re all likely to have different ideas about the nature of God, so their relationship and tutelage over their wives could be radically different from case to case. For example, some Godly husbands will believe in a wrathful, jealous, ever watchful God which will obviously affect their behavior over their flock and not always in a benevolent or wise manner.
The issue raised about game is a good one as the Catholic Church historically has had a near pathological obsession and fixation with men having any type of wayward approach to the opposite sex. I’m still not convinced that our default Christian culture views this type of behavior in a manly,positive and life affirming manner that the author appears to suggest. Men who play around are perceived negatively in our societies and I’m afraid to say that some of the extreme types of anti-man feminism evolved directly out of this Christian ethic.
In the article it mentions maleness and the body. I think a man’s sexuality (hetro or homo) and his body in this regard is his most feminine element. Even the psychological ploys he uses to get game are imitative of the female psyche.
Christianity should accept that this is the case, that there’s no such concept in “our world” as a purely male character. We all came from womens’ wombs and perhaps part of this tendency to proclaim a pure masculinity, especially through our Christian heritage in the manosphere comes from this shameful and embarrassing fact, that despite all our natural excellence, it was females whom nevertheless created us. Historically, Christianity manipulated this shame in a hatred of all natural and normal human sexuality and the body that gave rise to a whole litany of distortions, like feminism, obesity and pedophilia that we witness in our societies today.
The Bible (and the article) address your concerns about authority.
Husbands are given authority over their household by God, and they are admonished to
1) Remember that they are also subject to God (God has authority over them).
2) giving honour to the female as to the weaker vessel, and as to the
co-heirs of the grace of life: that your prayers be not hindered.
(1 Peter 3:17) [basically, spiritual incentive and a divine command to not abuse your wife]. Of course, the churchians have perverted and twisted this Scripture like everything else.
So basically men have their responsibilities (if they truly seek God as shown by Scripture), and women have theirs (but women’s responsibilities never get preached on, or if they do, it is typically in such a way that she isn’t responsible for anything).
“We all came from womens’ wombs and perhaps part of this tendency to
proclaim a pure masculinity, especially through our Christian heritage
in the manosphere comes from this shameful and embarrassing fact,”
I think this is more about severing the umbilical cord (literally and figuratively) that connects a man to his mother, and start living life on his own (of course, the old joke says he ends up marrying his mother).
But, we can never sever that chord. That’s why we’ll always be captured and enthralled to the feminine despite our best attempts to escape. Even homosexuals don’t escape even when they think they’re free they are essentially immersed in the female gaze.
“we can never sever that chord.”
Ecc 7:26 “I have found woman more bitter than death, who is the hunter’s snare, and her heart is a net, and her hands are bands. He that pleaseth God shall escape from her: but he that is a sinner, shall be caught by her.”
WE as humans cannot. Only God can.
What you describe is a remnant of the Fall. A marriage might be between a man and a woman, but the glue that holds them together is God.
The feminine allure and the pitfalls of such are attempts by man to fill the God-void within him with something else. And like any idol, it will fail the man in his hour of need.
So, all women like Christ’s apostles in his hour of need will eventually disappoint and fail us in our own expectations.
On a more philosophical level do you think that when you fail other people in life through a lack of generosity or compassion that’s it’s a result of the feminine nature that’s an inherent part of you as a man?
On the metaphysical plane then does this mean that Divinity if it’s perfect in everything and is something that cannot be created, must be by definition masculine? If it is, what does this mean about our ultimate reconciliation with God?
Homosexuals are far more enthralled by the feminine; healthy sexuality admires the feminine from an exterior position of relative independence. Homosexuality has an affinity with the feminine in its subordination to the masculine as something alien to the self, which it seeks to obtain through eros, rather than to possess as a rightful owner.
Interesting thought.
On the other hand, both attempts may not be entirely satisfactory in itself. I think that Carl Gustav Jung encouraged incorporation of the anima, the female energies into the masculine self, so as to not be dependent on them in a woman.
To own them rightfully is an interesting concept, but it represents a struggle of the male to subdue the female – which is not necessary in my opinion.
“o, all women like Christ’s apostles in his hour of need will eventually disappoint and fail us in our own expectations.”
Basing your life on anything but Christ will fail.
“n a more philosophical level do you think that when you fail other people in life through a lack of generosity or compassion”
God’s definition of compassion or generosity or a human definition?
“On the metaphysical plane”
I don’t know rightly, but Jesus did reveal the following about our future bodies:
“For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like angels in heaven. ”
Mark 12:25
and Paul:
“But someone will say, “How are the dead raised? What kind of body will they have when they come?….So it is with the resurrection of the dead: Sown in corruption, raised in incorruption; own in dishonor, raised in glory; sown in weakness, raised in power; sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven. Like the man made of dust, so are those who are made of dust; like the heavenly man, so are those who are heavenly. And just as we have borne the image of the man made of dust, we will also bear the image of the heavenly man. ”
(1 Corinthians 15:35, 42-49)
Whatever our new bodies will be, the new order will be unlike the old order.
I understand that view, but I disagree with Jung – chiefly because I think men are already (when healthy) emotionally independent of women, and do not need to incorporate femininity into themselves in order to break that dependence.
Maybe it is because you have never dissociated from it, thus seeing no need for integration. I figure that a lot of problems are difficult to understand for healthy men as they never experienced them. It helps me to meditate on femininity to feel more emotionally independent – although I would not say it makes me effeminate. In a way, a part of it is the incorporation of emotions TOWARDS females, of which a part is surely this ‘owning’ attitude. A lot of shame surrounded that in me and I am breaking it slowly.
I’m not sure if homosexuality is subordinate to the masculine as the feminine aspect in women is. Besides an active homosexual would surely would to dominate the masculine element in other men so he’s not in a subordinate position? Maybe we read too much into what they do!
“All men are Godly men but just different expressions of his glory”.
Your argument is sound but is formed on a foundation of error. Therefore your argument is untrue and false.
“The problem with wise husbands having domain over their wives like God having wise domain over his subjects is based on the idea that all husbands are perfect and manly just like God in the first place”.
God is all and everything. Nothing of this universe springs forth if not through God. Including the creation of good and evil. “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things”. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV). Therefore man is made in the image of God perfectly in all of his goodness, evil, weaknesses and strengths (within our limited capacity as humans of course).
“Also, the problem, even in cases of “Godly husbands”, they’re all likely to have different ideas about the nature of God, so their relationship and tutelage over their wives could be radically different from case to case. For example, some Godly husbands will believe in a wrathful, jealous, ever watchful God which will obviously affect their behavior over their flock and not always in a benevolent or wise manner”
You speak truth but you are wielding it handicapped. I will use your own argument and shine a true light on it to strengthen mine: Since God encompasses all that is good and evil, right and wrong, light and dark, then men WILL differ in their unique expressions of God in his image. Since no man but the chosen ones can encompass all that God is at once, we will have men with unique displays of God in his own image. Evil men, weak men, jealous men, courageous men.
All men are Godly men but just different expressions of his glory.
“Since God encompasses all that is good and evil, right and wrong, light and dark, then men WILL differ in their unique expressions of God in his image.” If such a God encompasses both the extremes of radical good and evil how then can not men differ radically in how they not only interpret his Will, but indeed implement it? In some cases men due to their interpretation of this Will might men not “rightfully” commit evil and despicable acts because in their minds they’re doing good by implementing His Will? What ethical redress is there under this scheme. If their wills are influenced by His evil component (because He’s all good and evil) then they’re righteous and innocent when they carry out evil acts in our world. Has this not happened historically many times in history?
This whole premise you state seems absurd. Surely is it not this premise that is precisely the argument that ISIS for example use in their beheading of Christians? If this is the nature of the Christian God, namely a mercurial God who acts on whims of Good or Evil depending on how He feels, why surely should we worship Him? Who can be be benevolent and all Good in the way Christ taught?
From what I can glean from your writing you are passing judgement from your own imperfect logic (as I have demonstrated already). Therefore, cannot your scales of judgement be imperfect as well? We are all human after all. God chooses whom he wills, has given us 613 commandments and examples to follow in order to become Christlike, as well as freewill to man in order to be able to choose Gods love. All men are Godly because we were made in his image. But that doesn’t excuse man from any Sin he may commit.
The reasons that ISIS does anything is not known to me nor are the judgements that God passes on to others because every situation is unique. Nice jab though.
Just wanted to point out that God does not encompass what is evil, since God is pure being, pure act, and evil is a defection from being, and is purely passive.
God is not able to be circumscribed (“encompassed”) by the human mind or nature; no man at all, therefore, “encompasses all that God is at once.” God is infinite and simple beyond even the concept of simplicity and unity, but we are contingent and finite. We may say that we are similar to God by a certain proportion to some of His qualities by way of the analogia entis (“analogy of being”), but God as He is in Himself is infinitely unlike us, and incomprehensible to us.
Thank you for clearing it up. Perhaps my choice of words has caused confusion. I agree that no man will comprehend the workings of God which is a salient point I was trying to get across. Although what we may perceive as evil may be God’s punishment or justice. We are made in his image after all.
Ah, yes. Sometimes man perceives good as evil, and vice versa.
Truth is not visible from every vantage point. Perception is a person’s reality, and the carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, it is enmity
As to your first paragraph, I would simply give the old dictum: abusus non tollit usum. Men have their shortcomings, but that doesn’t change the fact that their paternity and authority is rooted in God; they should strive to overcome their shortcomings and conform more closely to the model.
Anyone familiar with Catholic culture, knows that it is “sex-positive” (to use a hopelessly “problematic” term from the Left), but “fornication-negative,” and regards celibacy as an objectively higher and supernatural path, without therefor impugning the good of sex and marriage when used in accord with nature.
I know a lot about Church history, and I nowhere recognize your statement (“Historically, Christianity manipulated this shame in a hatred of all natural and normal human sexuality”) as true in Church history. Early modern heresies, especially Puritanism and Jansenism, took this approach; but the Church has never had an hatred for natural sexuality.
Interesting. It is such a stereotype, is it not?
A few years back, some Christian nuts were making some kind of show on a public place and they had a big cloth with ‘SEX’ on it. And they wrapped it around a woman and she kinda collapsed in fear of the devil. And like all those funny zealot eunuchs, they then sang with their clear boyish voices: Sex is bad, you gotta love god.
So yeah, I admit that I am not well versed in Church history or even the bible. And yet the stereotype of Christian sexual shaming persists and sexual shame is indeed a part of our culture. So where does it come from, if not actually from Christians?
Most, probably, of what the current culture does with sex is shameful – it descends to the level of animals… actually, worse than animals. I think people feel the shame, and deal with it in dysfunctional ways (often in ways that compound and intensify the shame, creating a vicious circle). They then blame some other institution/person that stands for morality as the cause of their shame, flattering themselves that if it didn’t exist, that if nobody ever spoke out loud the idea that people should have an higher standard, they would not feel ashamed of themselves.
Also, I think that even people who are trying to use sex in decent ways, are sometimes aware that they are dealing with urges and sensations that are not easily understood or controlled, and they therefore have a natural fear of the potential for exploitation of others, selfishness, etc.
Finally, this country has had an healthy injection of Puritan stock, and some Catholic moral teaching was impacted by a lingering Jansenism. So, certainly we still carry some of that.
It makes sense, when viewed from a similar perspective as overeating. These vicious cycles of shame are a very good observation, I have to say I am impressed. I have not yet read this analyzed in any meaningful manner by anyone than myself, although I did not research much. Here is what I observed, in a more precise manner, through my own OCD: I actually was ashamed of shame itself, which led to me not being able to feel and process it, thus I had to avoid the emotion of shame completely, which led me to basically necessitate a falsification of reality. So I would be standing in front of the mirror, trying to trick myself into thinking I look thin. I did this for years – such a strain on the mind. Simple shame is indeed powerful and helpful in directing one. I wonder if there is a natural sense of shame that can be distinguished from the shame in the ‘shaming’ sense.
I think it started when I would come to mother and say: Look how fat I am.
And she would say something like: Oh no! You must never be ashamed! You are a beautiful kid.
So I concluded that it is some kind of crime to be ashamed and tried to fight it, leading me right into the madness. And in hindsight, this ‘shame for shame’ is almost undetectable. An emotion covered by the same emotion, appearing as one self-enforcing cycle. A bit like ‘fear of being afraid’, coming from: True men fear nothing.
You are the first guy on here that makes me see Christianity in a better light. That is quite an achievment. I wonder whether it is due to your own wisdom or because Christianity helped you become that.
Yes, animalistic sterile sex is nowhere near as satisfactory as marrying a beautiful woman who desires that you impregnate her. What is more thrilling than a beautiful woman wanting you to impregnate her? Talk about feeling manly. After that, all sterilized contraceptive sex is mere masturbation. I want nothing but to impregnate her, over and over, and she feels the same.
Yes, I entirely agree. My best buddy, who is married, has said the same, as well. I can’t even think of contracepted intercourse as “sex,” let alone any unnatural acts. And because modern women are so unreal, so contracepted, all on the pill, etc., I actually don’t find any of them attractive, anymore.
I probably shouldn’t say this, but I am rarely distracted by generic thoughts of women (especially modern women) for this reason; and in fact, the only time my nether regions really stir, is at the thought of a woman ready and eager to bake my bun in her oven, if I can put it that way. It’s the only thing that actually seems sexual to me, now: the clear, mutual interplay of the male and female roles. I think it’s why I find old movies to be so much “sexier” than new ones, despite the new ones being far more graphic. People in the old days were still men and women, still knew that dynamism of the male-female attraction, still felt the biological reality in their bones; now, all people do is engage in a form of mutual masturbation. I often wonder if this is not at the heart of all the gender confusion at present – people have simply never known what is to be a man feeling like a man, or a woman feeling like a woman. Everyone is simply an occasion of friction.
I might have a raw ability for thought; but I am very aware that being exposed to the wisdom of the Fathers, Doctors and Saints of the Church (not to mention the pagan philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle), has given me an head-start on wisdom that would otherwise have been arduous, if not impossible, to gain. I’m still foolish enough, in many ways.
You are foolish? Amuse me.
If only we could all be as “foolish” as you.
Sir, I have been an unlawful bawd time out of mind;
but yet I will be content to be a lawful hangman.
Nay, I shall ne’er be ware of mine own wit till I break my shins against it.
I admit that I have no clue what I just read. That either means you are clearly of superior intelligence or that your foolishness was a bluff.
They are lines from two Shakespearean fools, which I thought were apt.
Haha. Okay, foolish enough.
“The problem with wise husbands having domain over their wives like God having wise domain over his subjects is based on the idea that all husbands are perfect and manly just like God in the first place.”
This is a false statement. It is not found in the Bible or in the article above. Your statement comes from your own interpretations and extrapolations. You might want to go back and find out the real reason that husbands have domains in life.
God having domain over the tribes of Israel.
Wonderful article but…i wish you would have taken greater care not to post an image which references the hand gestures of the baphomet.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hojRxoeREhM/T-8QC-E7qmI/AAAAAAAABjI/hkdzoEkCmEM/s1600/baphomet-yuri-leitch.jpg
This is like a running joke among satanic circles…painting images to resemble the baphomet as a thumbs up to satan. They do it with representations of Jesus too.
The satanic things are simply perversions of the sacred; somewhat like how the Orcs were perversions of the Elves in Tolkien mythology.
I’m assuming that is what is depicted here.
That would be the rational first assumption, and I congratulate you on your perspicacity as to the nature of the profane. But many radical Protestants are quick to assume that Catholicism is simply a pagan corruption of “Bible-based” Christianity, and therefore every tradition and custom of the Catholic Church must really originate in something Satanic.
The Christian sign of blessing is far more ancient than any depiction of that wretched demon, and can be seen even in late antique illustrations of Christ in the 500s. Indeed, this sign is placed in the demon’s hand as a mockery of Christianity.
It originally derived from a gesture in Roman art, indicating the person depicted was speaking. That depiction had the pinky and ring finger tucked into the palm, and the other three fingers outstretched. It was adapted by the early Christians to resemble a hand position that had come to be used in the apostolic custom of making the sign of the Cross – the three fingers touching indicated the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (pinky and ring look alike, as the Son is the Begotten and Image of the Father, and the thumb, slightly different, is the Spirit Who proceeds and is not begotten); the two raised fingers (usually with the middle finger slightly bent) indicated the two natures of Christ which went out from the Trinity into the world, with the bent middle finger indicating that Christ’s Divine Nature humbled itself in being joined with His human nature. This became the most common form of holding the hand in blessing in the Western Church, since this simple hand gesture is a sign of the chief facts of the Gospel – that Christ came in the flesh to save man, and that there are Three in heaven who bare witness to this – the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
In the East, where Greek was the main language, they used the exact same hand gesture, but with the pinky raised and the thumb and ring finger more rounded, with a slight opening. This makes the fingers to form the Greek letters ICXC, the first and last letters of “Jesus Christ.”
This is a problem sometimes in certain circles of Protestantism; because there is almost no knowledge of history, especially Church history, they have a cottage industry of inventing occult explanations for all the Catholic “mumbo-jumbo” that they simply don’t understand. I will point out that it is you, who have placed the actual image and name of the foul demon here.
Indeed, Christian catholic representations of Christ precede the earliest pictorial representations of the baphomet. I do not dispute this. The problem is, you’re basing your suppositional reasoning on an embellishment of scriptural interpretation, since Christ Himself is nowhere depicted engaging in any of the hand gestures that you speak of within the bible. Since scriptures themselves condemn embellishment or fabrication, to say that the baphomet is wrong and these gestures are in compliance with scriptural orthodoxy is a vast stretch of credibility indeed, more so when one is held to a higher standard of learning as you indubitably are. Christ never commanded us to worship his visage, he never even called us to call ourselves “Christians” we in our means of adulation chose to do so.
One could make the argument that a penchant for idolatry is present within those who subscribe to this belief, when one excuses or otherwise condones the worship of the image of the Man and puts it on equal footing to the more important message the Man came to share. I do not accuse you of this nor do i imply it, i merely state that this is always a possibility within those who share in your view.
Furthermore, given that the entire representations of Christ as commonly perceived is itself based on a Caucasian caricature that is in NO WAY supported by scripture (Rev 1:14-15) one comes to understand that any such depictions of Christ are themselves fraudulent, and exist to further a (possibly racial) agenda that is not consistent with scripture.
” I will point out that it is you, who have placed the actual image and name of the foul demon here.”
Yes it was me, just as Milton depicted his acts in Paradise lost and Dante depicted his abode in the divine comedy. Given that there exists females in various stages of undress on this site, i hope you will excuse me for posting something which i believed would be no more harmful to those who understand spiritual matters as to those who understand matters of the flesh.
If the figurative pointed index finger within your last remark is somehow meant to invalidate mine, then i am truly sorry. Sorry that i expected a far more accurate and far less condescending response from a fellow scholar such as yourself.
The scripture you quoted tells of John’s prophetic vision of Jesus Christ heralding his arrival. It says in that passage you’re pointing to that his head and hair were white like wool. For it to mean his hair texture was that of wool, the sentence would have to read “as wool”. Even then, the entire structure of the sentence would change because the subject of the sentence is the adverb describing how white he perceived his head and hair to be, not how thick the texture was.
This is a vision that is symbolic in nature from His Majesty The Almighty so you have things which cannot be taken as gospel, so to speak. These include things like having a sword in his mouth, a golden girdle around his chest, holding seven stars, appearing among seven candlesticks and finally, the line you reference, his feet like that of brass, “AS IF THEY (were) BURNED” in a furnace (words in brackets are mine to keep the syntax of the sentence). Those four words directly imply that his feet looked BURNT (the past tense is used in the bible implying that his feet, to John’s impression, should’ve been white to begin with but instead were unusually dark) compared to the rest of his body. It was out of the ordinary because John was looking at a white man with DARK feet.
The symbolism of these visions can be explained when looking at the customs and traditions of those times. The golden girdle or belt was traditionally worn by priests during the execution of their duties, but a fabric styled version. The gold in the vision signifies royal and kingly status. The white colored hair denotes wisdom as our culture still teaches today. The way John emphasizes the color foreshadows just how much wisdom Jesus has. “White like snow”. Is there a purer white in nature than a blanket of white snow? The stars and candlesticks are explained at the end of the verse. The sword imagery fits beautifully with Matthew 10:34. As for the feet? If you visit countries which still live as they did in those days, you can tell who the people are(usually were poor) who work outdoors or in the fields all day by how dark their feet are. Socks or closed toed shoes aren’t worn because of the heat. This could be symbolic for how far Jesus has traveled, how diligently he served, his financial condition, his work, etc. I’m sure I could pinpoint this one if I had more time.
To conclude; Jesus had blond hair, blue eyes and white skin. He was not black based on that passage provided.
Disagree. You’re arguing with a preference for semantics, such as with the “as wool” substitute.
Your beliefs aside, you also have to realize that mideastern people don’t tend to be White, or lily White as common depictions of Jesus portray Him as.
You are asking for me to suspend my interpretation of the bible because yours includes an interpretation that does not take what is said as literal, even though scriptures themselves recommend no such thing. You will therefore excuse me if i disagree.
“It was out of the ordinary because John was looking at a white man with DARK feet.”
For this sentence to be correct, the scriptures would have to state that his entire body was of a White complexion as well, when in fact nowhere does scripture speak of such a thing.
His head being White as in Caucasian is debatable, moreso because the wool comparison naturally includes a texture that is more common to Blacks than Whites. Black people hair naturally turns white as it ages, so John could have been seeing Jesus as a much older representation, which would fit the verses we are discussing.
You are welcome to interpret Jesus as you see fit, i however will disagree given the context of the scriptures and the racial predominance of the genealogy of the region at the time, which still continues to this day.
I’m sorry, Mr. Ramos, it’s just that I find much of what you’re saying incoherent and out of step with reality. It’s also not that I objected so much to posting a picture of the demon (though it’s not something I would lightly do, which is why I won’t even mention the name). What irritated me, was that you would chastise me for posting an image of Christ as though it were inappropriate to post something that was even reminiscent of the demon, and then you posted the demon itself. And, moreover, you did this while stating that this depiction of Christ was based upon the depiction of the demon, which was irritating because it is so untrue and so easily seen to be untrue. And then, confronted about it, you turn about and say that of course you know this depiction of Jesus predates the demonic image. Well, what was your point, then?
Thus, you change the topic and try to act as though your objection were to idolatry. And even there I am confused. What do you mean by “worship” the image of Christ? Do you use the word worship in its late modern, or early modern sense? And if in the late sense, I have never known any Catholic to “worship” an image of Christ, or of a saint. Furthermore, your concept of “embellishment” is vague, as is your assertion that the Bible forbids it (since, based on what I can gather of your meaning, the Bible really doesn’t say anything so specific about so broad a notion). So, I find all of this to be behavior unbecoming a man who thinks of himself as a scholar, and so I did not reply to you as a scholar. And, indeed, I do not even think of myself as a scholar – in point of fact, I suppose “scholar” has some negative connotations for me.
As to your concluding remarks, in re-reading my message to you I don’t see that I made any rude remarks, so I don’t understand your sentiment. I mentioned that there is a cottage industry in Protestantism of inventing “Babylonian” (and other insane) explanations for Christian iconography, because many of them are anti-Catholic ideologues with a minimal (almost non-existent) knowledge of history. This is true, and the truth may hurt, but it isn’t condescending to point it out. Just read the works of Alexander Hislop or Jack Chic.
” What irritated me, was that you would chastise me for posting an image
of Christ as though it were inappropriate to post something that was
even reminiscent of the demon, and then you posted the demon itself.”
I wasn’t chastising you, just offering elaboration. You assumed i did. I never once questioned your motivation or the integrity therein. I even complimented the article itself. It was very thorough and accurate.
“you did this while stating that this depiction of Christ was based upon
the depiction of the demon, which was irritating because it is so untrue
and so easily seen to be untrue.”
No, i did no such thing. I said it “references the baphomet” that’s it.
“And then, confronted about it, you turn about and say that of course you
know this depiction of Jesus predates the demonic image. Well, what
was your point, then?”
You missed my point. It was really that simple. Please re read.
“Thus, you change the topic and try to act as though your objection were to idolatry. And even there I am confused.”
I’m not “changing topic” merely correcting you on your error about me.
“What do you mean by “worship” the image of Christ? Do you use the word worship in its late modern, or early modern sense? ”
I’m referring to both since both offer an unsubstantiated image that presumes to be that of Christ.
“And if in the late sense, I have never known any Catholic to “worship” an image of Christ, or of a saint. ”
They don’t have to say they worship the image per se, simply worshiping the image AS Christ is sufficient, since Christ never commanded to do any such thing.
” Furthermore, your concept of “embellishment” is vague, as is your
assertion that the Bible forbids it (since, based on what I can gather
of your meaning, the Bible really doesn’t say anything so specific about
so broad a notion).”
Revelation 22:18
“So, I find all of this to be behavior unbecoming a man who thinks of
himself as a scholar, and so I did not reply to you as a scholar. ”
I could say the same of you, given the histrionics that you uncharacteristically used to attack me on here before and seemingly now. (“incoherent, out of step with reality”) I however still continue to show you the proper respect befitting someone like you who i still hold in considerable esteem.
“And, indeed, I do not even think of myself as a scholar – in point of
fact, I suppose “scholar” has some negative connotations for me. ”
I never said you did; i referred to you as such and no, it was never intended to express a concomitant consequential negative implication. You are once again in assumption and once again likely doing so due to an emotional motive.
“As to your concluding remarks, in re-reading my message to you I don’t
see that I made any rude remarks, so I don’t understand your sentiment.”
You should reread your remarks then from an objective position. I found it quite curt and quite surprising as a result. This part anyway:
“This is a problem sometimes in certain circles of Protestantism; because there is almost no knowledge of history, especially Church history”
-You are basically calling me ignorant because I’m a Protestant.
“…they have a cottage industry of inventing occult explanations for all the Catholic “mumbo-jumbo” that they simply don’t understand.”
-Here you are saying or implying I’m delusional because of my collectivist protestant tendencies because I’m too stupid or ignorant to understand catholic doctrine.
“I will point out that it is you, who have placed the actual image and name of the foul demon here.”
-The finger pointing here at the end didn’t much help either. It felt as if i was back in Salem circa the 1700’s.
“This is true, and the truth may hurt, but it isn’t condescending to point it out”
Only when your truth is actually accurate insofar as to what you were actually attempting to correct.
Satanic perversions of the sacred are a mocking insult, not the other way around. It is representative of how fallen angels thought they could emulate the lord and overthrow him.
Other perversions are present in this image, such as the conflation of the masculine and feminine, of man and animal, things that are separate in moral society.
Indeed. When Men strive to pay homage to God, they tend to do so with creative license, which others with an ulterior (and far less Christian) motive may choose to mock with homages to the (false) god of their own.
Love the name by the way. 😀
What the so-called Red Pill men need to understand is that the push toward Atheism was the key force in opening the flood gates of degeneracy in the West. Once the unalienable virtues of religion were deemed illegitimate by the new social forces, there was no stopping culture destroyers from creating their own. Hedonism was praised as the new virtue, and after that was done there was nothing preventing degeneracy from taking shape in all of its many foul incarnations. The majority of “Christians” today celebrate a completely feminized, virtually Marxist version of Christianity – and this was what Leftism/Marxism had planned from the beginning. This is no conspiracy – it was written openly by many Marxist “philosophers” that Christianity was the main force stopping them from galvanizing the people. If they couldn’t completely destroy Christianity, then they would co-opt it and turn it into something that someone even just 60 years ago would not recognize as Christianity. My only fear for the Alt-Right is that the majority of you won’t discover God quickly enough. We WILL NOT win unless we rediscover God. It is only through belief in the transcendent that we will be able to win this war – after all, what else will inspire the courage necessary to do what needs to be done? I don’t know exactly how to inspire people toward rediscovering God, but Meditations by Marcus Aurelius put me on the path. I would recommend it to everyone on this site. Please keep the great work coming, brother.
The co-opted Christianity is even worse, IMO, than outright opposition, because it’s like dumping prescription medicine into the candy jar; falsehood is planted with the truth.
“My only fear for the Alt-Right is that the majority of you won’t
discover God quickly enough. We WILL NOT win unless we rediscover God.”
Here I must diverge with you: it’s not about our side winning. It is about INDIVIDUALS being on GOD’S side: choose whom this day you will serve. Jesus, the Son of God, won the ultimate victory over sin and death (for those who believe, believed, and will believe) when He died on the Cross.
God does not need America, the Alt-Right, or Western Civilization, or Russia. He may choose to use those secular instruments (he used Cyrus the Persian to rebuild His temple) for His ends, and that may or may not involve personal survival.
But we as believers are guaranteed victory (to live is to Christ, to die is to gain). I don’t claim knowledge of who will be saved or how, but I do know that the Supreme Judge is Righteous, Mercy, and Truth, and will claim His own.
Edit: I can’t claim superior spiritualism; I’d be lucky to qualify as human, honestly. In short, it’s not about me or us; it’s all about Him.
Thank you for clearing this up. I didn’t mean to come off as saying “We need to use God as an instrument” or something to that effect, I would never suggest such a thing. He wants us to reclaim our civilization in His name, and so by saying “rediscover God” I meant rediscover him such that we can rediscover our purpose – which is of course to serve Him. Serving Him will lead men toward their destiny which is the revival of virtue in the West.
A patriarchal atheism makes perfect sense, despite what these liberal-progressive New Atheist goofs think. The New Atheists do the equivalent of granting “equality” to the viruses and malware on their computers by ignoring the differences between useful software and parasitic or damaging software.
You cannot undo the history of philosophy. It is full of demarcations, one way traffic signs. The end of human sacrifice around the world is one example. The philosophy of the Christians is another. The philosophies of Darwin and Nietzsche are others.
So there is no going back to a patriarchal paganism. Rome can’t be resurrected. Philosophy has points of no return, and Rome lies several points behind us.
Nietzsche tried solving nihilism with the ubermenschen. It failed. Marx tried solving nihilism with materialism and technocracy. It failed. There is no going forward by going back. The only way forward is to choose the correct religion, or make a new revolutionary scientific discovery about nature. And to place you faith in scientific revolution is to place your faith. To place your faith is to choose a religion. You’re still choosing a religion when you avoid religion and place your faith in scientific progress.
Well said Sir.
It is a human need to have faith in something, religious or otherwise.
I understand your point about placing your faith, but I would not call avoidance of religion a religion.
I would call any supernatural supposition religious in nature. For example, any statement regarding the morality of something, or the value of something, is a religious sentiment. It is participating in a religious activity. Therefore, if you have any statements about how things or people ought to be, or try to place value on things such as intellect, humanity, rights, justice, progress, freedom, or any other immaterial supernatural invention, then you are behaving just like a religious person.
Not-choosing is choosing. You will be punished and rewarded for that which you do and that which you do not.
Discovering god in name or in deed?
The problem is the concept of god needs to be brought up-to-date. Everybody is too educated to believe in an invisible man in the sky. But as a rational, reasonable man I can see the reasons behind theological teachings.
Reasonable, highly educated men can be highly religious. The clue is separating insistence that science and religion both strive for “truth”. Science looks for facts and not morality, religion looks for spiritual truth The notion that science and religion are analogs searching for the same thing is a wholly Marxist conceit.
I recall at one point (Renaissance era?) science was considered to be the study of god’s creation, and that by studying his creation we can understand god.
Were science truly an amoral agent, the psychological and physiological differences between the sexes wouldn’t be hushed so feminists can feel good about themselves. But then again the problem will eventually take care of itself. Shame I probably won’t live to see it though.
(Renaissance era?) science was considered to be the study of God’s creation, and that by studying His creation we can understand God.
This was the understanding until Marx hit the scene.
Yet what do you do when that study of his creation reveals that it is a big ball?
Accept it.
Not what happened. Not for a while.
It’s ok to be content with knowledge of what is. I endorse yearning and seeking horizons, and I also find accepting wisdom and knowledge of what you discover. There is no schism here.
Are you aware that I am referring to the oppression of Galileo?
Yes. But Galileo wasn’t oppressed.
Then why do I believe he was?
Because you’ve been taught that he was persecuted for his science, and not his arrogance. Research the man, he had no enemies in the Catholic Church regarding science, in fact he had many highly placed allies. He got arrogant and mocked the most powerful man in the world, who otherwise called him friend.
Key word: Simplicio
Yes, the Natural World was sometimes called “the other Scripture.”
Where there is power and influence, bad and venal persons will attempt to gain access, and to wield that power and influence for their own agenda. This was true of the Church, and it is true of the new elite disseminators of “truth” in our age, the sciences.
The difference between the Church and the sciences, is that the Church had moral and spiritual standards, many systems for reform, and, for much of Her history, very high standards for admission to the ranks of clergy, especially in monasteries, whence upper clergy were often drawn (to say nothing of providence)… whereas the sciences are often rather agnostic on the real nature of ethics, have no system for assessing the moral fibre of scientists (if they even think that’s particularly relevant), and often have abysmal philosophical qualifications. This makes the sciences a far worse system for disseminating “truth,” but its aura of empiricism (now eroding amidst the mountains of shoddy, published work) lends it a greater respectability in the eyes of a materialist age.
It was always known that it was a big ball. All the Medieval depictions of Christ creating the world show him forming a sphere. Also, he was referred to as the “Orbis Factor” (“maker of the sphere”); all the heavenly bodies were conceived of as spheres within spheres, and the celestial music was the music of the spheres. Aristotle mentions the various ways to know the earth was a sphere way back in his day, and the Medieval authors (by Aquinas’ day) all knew Aristotle. There was also Ptolemy’s Almagest, which is quite clear about the spherical Earth, etc.
Most of what people think they know about the Middle Ages, is Renaissance/Enlightenment propaganda. Even the term “Middle Ages” was chosen by Renaissance snobs, to indicate that the period between the sack of Rome and their own day was a non-event. But the heavy lifting making the Renaissance possible, had been done in the several centuries preceding it.
The Church always accepted, and even wrote hymns describing, that the Earth was round. I wonder if you’re thinking of Galileo’s position on heliocentrism.
As I said a bit above, there has been a lot of “Enlightenment” propaganda against the Church. There is a misconception that the Church refused to consider the idea that the universe may not be geocentric. The Church was actually sponsoring other astronomers who were saying the same thing as Galileo. The objection to Galileo was the attitude and manner in which he was saying it.
Kepler and Copernicus had published works on heliocentrism prior to Galileo. Galileo himself received permission from the Church on more than one occasion to publish works describing the heliocentric theory, including permission from pope Urban VIII and St. Robert Bellarmine. The only requirement – and observe how *scientific* this was – was that Galileo not present the theory as a fact, yet, since the parallax motion mentioned as a necessity for heliocentrism by Aristotle, had not yet been proven. Since there was no certain proof for it yet, the Church required that it be discussed only as an hypothesis, until it could be proven.
Urban VIII had actually been a friend and patron of Galileo, defending others of his views against Cardinal Gonzaga, etc. What set things amiss for Galileo, was that (after an already long history of insulting those who disagreed with him), when he wrote his work, Dialogue on the Two Chief Systems of the World, he put some of pope Urban VIII’s doubts into the mouth of his dialogue’s character, insultingly named Simplicio (“Simpleton”). Urban VIII felt betrayed, and Galileo was furthermore refusing to present heliocentrism as a possible theory, insisting instead on insulting the entire scientific and ecclesiastical establishment by jumping the gun on the question. It was that behavior that led Galileo to run afoul of the Church. Other men had freely written and published on heliocentrism, and were even paid by the Church for doing so.
Interesting view.
Not what I heard, but again, interesting view. Thanks. Cool guy!
Galileo was “oppressed” by being sent to his house for going against his publishers and contributors, to his house where he was permitted to continue his research. Much of his work was funded and distributed by the Catholic Church.
The problem with Scientists proclaiming the truth from an empiricist perspective is that it’s based on a fallacy. Empiricism is a theoretical framework that attempts to describe reality from an array of concepts drawn not from the objective reality they wish to describe, but, from the Scientific worlds own theoretical framework. This framework when examined critically is laden with its very own socially desirable “teleological” terms that are neither objective or subjectively “value free”.
For example the Oxford Biologist Richard Dawkins, who’s a brilliant user and exponent of the English language, has consistently used this sleight of hand technique throughout his meteoric career. Unlike the objective rationalist that he proclaims to be, he abuses the raw scientific facts by giving them a secular teleological import that’s not based on any objective truth, but, rather on his own belief system of secular atheism/humanism. If he was truthful, he’d recognize the fact that you cannot extrapolate from an experiment on gene grafting in fruit flies on then say given x, y and z the same thing will happen in humans. That’s dishonest hypothetical bullshit that he dresses up as the “objective truth” and educated people believe this. Similarly he theory on Memes is another socially unverifiable construct made up entirely from his subjective worldview.
In 100 years time he’ll be a footnote or an example of a brilliant secular mind that became a victim of his own zealotry. I like the irony of this nevertheless.
Exactly. I try to explain this and I’m looked at like I’m crazy.
Wow, I didn’t know that at all. I remember in 7th grade when they taught me about Galileo and it was nothing like you said.
Obviously, I have some reading to do. Thanks Aurelius and excellent article.
Yes, I also believed what I was taught in school.
But, as I began to learn more, and especially after I took the “red pill” on race and gender, and began to grow suspicious generally of the received orthodoxies of our day, I was surprised at how thick the lies have been lain on. And really, it makes sense: if we know that they are lying to us about everything else, why do so many men continue to assume that they have told us the truth in their narrative about the most important thing – God, the Church and the soul?
Very, very true. If people actually looked at the “medieval” works of the schoolmen, they would be shocked at how good they are. Even Aquinas had a sense of humor, and had some surprisingly enlightened beliefs. These guys did the best anyone could do with the tools they had at the time.
Again, fantastic point, Cui, and very true. If people actually looked at the record, they would be surprised to find out that Galileo’s treatment was surprisingly lenient. Even Bruno, who was burned at the stake, was only punished after he basically went insane.
I see your point, but looking at churches history of corruption it is hard to believe that there were any high standards for anything.
As for reform, it generally had to forced upon the church from the outside.
The church is like any other organization, it’s main goal is to preserve and enrich itself.
The church is also like any other group of human beings, power corrupts.
You are right to point out that there is an inevitable element of human corruption, even in the Church.
But what amazes me, is that the Church clearly stands out as an institution which has survived for 2000 years, and, yes, often with quite high standards, to the point of producing miraculously holy people consistently throughout that time. And, her corruption has never been as widespread and complete as is the corruption in normal institutions and governments; moreover, she has this inexplicable power to renew, to cleanse, to reform herself. No, these reformations have absolutely never come upon her from the outside; they come from within – Pope St. Gregory eliminating the sale of the pallium and reforming the Liturgy and revitalizing spirituality, the miracle of monastic life and its inestimable contributions throughout the history of the Church, or Ss. Dunstan and Aethelwold reforming monastic life in England while St. Benedict of Aniane did so on the Continent, or the continual flowering of new orders demonstrating the rich variety of the Gospel and the Church’s life, or St. Chrodegang organizing the diocesan clergy along the model of Canons, or St. Francis reminding the Church of poverty and the holy folly of the Cross, or St. Francis de Sales recalling the French to their first faith, or the Council of Trent correcting the decadence of a dissolute age and sharpening the Church’s teaching with a brilliant clarity, and on and on. This is a power of rejuvenation and sanctity which outshines by far the incidental corruption here and there (usually exaggerated anyway), and which is unmatched by any other institution on Earth.
I can’t think of a single instance, when a force exterior to the Church actually improved the Church, unless you want to speak of divine chastisements, such as the onslaught of Goths and various Islamic powers… and these did not bring good ideas of their own to the Church, but rather, their evil and imminence provoked the Church to draw upon her interior resources for yet another period of renewal and vigour.
Ah, I’m glad you chimed in on this point, Quintus. I don’t think there’s any doubt that you’re a more accomplished scholar than I am of the Renaissance period, and Renaissance humanism in particular. I’m glad to hear that you can support my take on that whole affair.
Yes, I often think of such things as the Alexandreis by Walter of Chatillon, De Bello Troiano and Antiocheis by Joseph of Exeter, the Eupolemius (Anonymous), etc. These are 12th and 13th century epic poems in Latin.
Is there anything similar in the Renaissance? I’m not aware of similar attempts to produce long works of Latin verse later on. And, apart from matters of style, the Renaissance would have been unthinkable, if not for the philosophical acuity, the great flourishing of logic, and the institutions of education, developed in the High Middle Ages.
I find assessing the moral nature of scientists to be of upmost importance; I am a biochemist myself, and in the field of bioinorganic chemistry, there has been a stall in discovering how proteins uptake metal ions and how this affects gene regulation. All because the leaders in this field chose to start publishing papers to spite each other and have since been harming their departments and humanity by living in the sin of wreckless wrath. Science has no purpose without moral guidance, no matter how much we try to make curiosity a stand in.
Interesting, so the church was trying to protect science from its own arrogance. My alma mater had a similar problem. Being well known as one of the best universities in the world for analytical chemistry, the analytical chemists there had taken to proclaiming that advances in mass spec would replace organic chemistry as a field as if such an arrogant assumption were fact! Without accomplishing anywhere near such a feat! Something that made effective cooperation and communication more difficult.
A good illustration. This gets to the heart of the issue; why should a man think that, because he has been trained in empirical methods and the tools of empirical analysis, he is somehow competent in philosophy or abstract reasoning more generally? Many scientists are blinded by their commitment to their field and their expertise in a narrow subject; they forget that they are not islands unto themselves, that there are other disciplines involved in deciding how to understand and use the limited amount of empirical data their profession is capable of acquiring.
Absolutely. If we liken the disciplines of thought to a man, science is the senses; philosophy is the mind. Science only tells us what is present; philosophy tells us what it means, and how that information should be used. I’m often baffled by how many seemingly intelligent men, manage to confuse raw intelligence or competence in empirical methodology or mathematics, with philosophical training and competence. I will admit that Mathematics and the sciences give some experience with logic, mathematics moreso for trafficking in absolute concepts; but this power is rarely turned inward, and applied to expositing moral and philosophical absolutes that are just as clear and irrefutable as mathematical reasonings. I suspect the reason for the difference in interest and thoroughness in pursuing these rational absolutes, lies in the fact that mathematics rarely asks you to change your life or observe inconvenient limits on behavior, whereas philosophy might prove more inconvenient.
The Church has never taught that God is “an invisible man in the sky,” and it becomes clear just as soon as one reads such thinkers as Ss. Aquinas, Anselm, Bonaventure, Augustine, etc., that they were really much more sophisticated philosophical thinkers than anyone alive in our day. God is eternal and never goes out of date.
But here is where I do agree. The West became tepid, insincere and mechanical in its devotion to God. People did not bother to learn to know or love God. He became a decorative aspect of civic and private life – admired for the lovely way he complimented our psychological drapes, but otherwise not taken very seriously. But the encounter with God, when true, involves a certain kind of terror and apparent death. He will not suffer Himself to be made into the pet of our souls. As with a forest that has grown over-thick and tangled, new and healthy life could only come after a blaze. The fire rages on, but already some of us find ourselves in the charred places, metaphorically speaking. We will see if the ground is fertile enough for some new saplings, yet.
The problem is not with the institution teachings, but the public’s perception of it. They do not read the works of those thinkers, or practically think at all.
That’s very true. I’m convinced this is why there has been such a concerted movement to aggregate education in state hands, and then to diminish its quality so sharply. Somebody who has never been given the skills even to read good literature or to understand mathematical principles (rather than processes), is certainly not going to be thinking the great thoughts alongside St. Thomas Aquinas, Dante or Shakespeare, no matter how many Cliff’s Notes he has.
The American/Canadian education system’s purpose is not to create wise philosophers and free thinkers who have the capacity for deep reflection.
Instead, the focus is on indoctrinating the sheep with the mainstream narrative and preparing them for the workforce like the obedient herd they are.
I lead a Bible study group. Most of the members are graduates of respected universities. It’s alarming how much time we need to spend on basic reading comprehension before we can get into the meat of the passage. Many people struggle to follow simple logical arguments. The modern education system is indeed turning out people who just don’t have the mental skills to engage sensibly with the material. It’s very 1984.
Its based on a Prussian model that was instituted here in America in the mid 1800s
“The problem is with the public’s perception.”
The public is not a problem. The public is a fact. You need a religion that accounts for their condition. The public will never read Aquinas, nor Plato, nor most of the Bible. There’s nothing you can do about it. We have the most literate and educated humans in existence and they spend their time watching cat videos on YouTube. This is simply the human condition and you cannot make it go away.
The Christian religion requires that rulers rule in the name of Christ in the aim of obedience to God and in the aim of evangelizing the nations in preparation for Christ’s return. That is the purpose of government. To institute justice and peace so that public can worship and spread the gospel. Take away their porn, their drugs, their prostitutes, their vices and they will have no choice but to live a more virtuous life. Some will still find vice, because you can never eradicate vice and sin. But in aggregate, people will live a more virtuous life in a nation governed by God’s precepts and true justice.
A public addicted to vices IS quite a problem, at least for Christianity.
Yes, this is often my experience. Things I assume should be self-evident, or the plainly necessary conclusion of a simple syllogism, strike many people as wild speculation or opinion. I knew a priest who had a prior degree in psychology and had worked as a therapist. He mentioned that one of the biggest challenges his patients had, was simply being able to form a clear chain of thought in their head, so they could describe what they were thinking and feeling to him. If they can’t articulate their own thoughts, how will they understand complex material written by others?
So you suggest religious tyranny? Your idea brought us the dark ages.
Religion is the most dangerous and destructive thing in history, it has caused more wars, death and suffering than everything else put together.
To let the church run a nation is a disaster, our founding fathers knew this firsthand and wisely separated church and state.
Theocracy is the worst possible form of government, all you have to do is look at medieval Europe, the middle east, purtian New England, Kentucky etc.
Religion destroys everything it touches, it brings poverty and oppression just like socialism.
NO one should have to conform to a religion he thinks is false, live a lifestyle he does not like or be second class citizen because of someone else’s religion.
It is not the government’s place to “spread the gospel”, read the first amendment. and the case law associated with it.
You complain about vice, then want to force a vice based religion on the people.
You talk about wasted education, then want to force “education” based on mythology on the public.
Take away religion and the people can reach for the stars instead of being held back by superstition, hate, ignorance and fear.
Your kind of thinking is why the public has turned on religion and why it needs to be run out of the government and the school system.
The dark ages are not as dark as you think; the concept of a university came from the church in the dark ages, as did the society necessary for technological advancement. The teaching of these times as “the dark ages” is nothing more than the left trying to make something they don’t agree with radioactive by attaching an unattractive label, as they love to do.
American founding fathers were ministers, and their several States had State Churches. They passed laws against sodomy and interracial marriage.
My kind of thinking is for grown ups with responsibilities in the world. Your kind of thinking is for college kids on spring break in mom’s basement collecting fedoras to wear to their Autistics Anonymous Meetups.
Take your stupid space ship and shove it up you ass.
I think this image is the most feminine conjuration of a masculine entity imaginable. I have been praying that my obedience will give me strength to overcome degeneracy in my own actions. Church is not a place to beg for alms as many people my age believe.
Atheism is weak and only paves the way for Islam to take over. People need religion; It’s in our psyche.
Always bring a religion to a religious war.
~Tom Kratman.
Exactly. Of what use is Atheism to the West now? Aside from sanctimonious posturing from an intellectual ivory tower, what do atheists have to offer now? What was the point and tearing the cultural traditions which once protected the populace from outsiders?
You will notice that atheists rarely provide positive proscriptions for their perceived problems. They are EXPERT and criticism and deconstruction. They are INFANTILE in providing answers and constructive solutions. It is no wonder that religion still beats atheism in the public arena of thought. People, mature adults with actual responsibilities in life such as jobs, kids, and independence want ANSWERS, not endless questions and complaining.
Atheism is not a belief that sprung up that is in direct conflict with anything. It is simply the absence of belief. Atheism doesn’t exist because it has certain benefits or usefulness. It exists because Christianity and other religions have faded away, for various reasons including a watered down message, failure to incorporate science and new learnings into faith, increase in personal liberties, etc.
It’s like asking of what use is the empty space in your closet. It’s simply an area that has not been otherwise filled, for whatever reason. If you attack Atheism, you are attacking the wrong problem. Atheism is not the problem. It is evidence of the problem.
Then I guess it’s merely a coincidence that atheism is a inseparable part of Marxism. Not only is Atheism a big part of the problem, it and Feminism have been used as weapons to attack the patriarchy, undermine Western Civilization, as well as any semblance of normalcy. If you can’t see that, you’re beyond hope.
Historically, when you practice no religion, you don’t get no religion you get bad religion (see: Islam). Despite it’s flaws the Church would have at least attempted to push the saracens back. So I ask again: Of what use is atheism now? What is the usefulness of outright secularizing religion out of everyday life? What is the purpose of teaching future generations that all religions are equally as violent?
What I’m saying is put yourself in an Atheist’s shoes and ask “of what use is Christianity?” Then do so for various other groups (MGTOWS, single moms, etc.). Answer that question correctly and you can reduce atheism.
Could you explain more about no religion leading to bad religion i.e. Islam?
One wonders why nearly 100% of atheists are so hostile, bordering on seething hatred, towards those of faith, an by that I mean Christians then? I can get if you don’t want to buy into religion and walk your own path. But to constantly sneer, attack, belittle and goad those not of *your* mind? Seems rather insecure. (not you personally).
Europe would have been predominantly Muslim landmass centuries ago had it not been for the bravery of Christians during the crusades; The Church founded Europe’s first universities, producing scholars like Robert Grosseteste, Albert the Great, Roger Bacon, et al; Most non-State universities across the West were established by and funded by, religion; Religious cultures contain values that are transcendent, regardless how secularized; I could go on and on.
The benefits of a religious culture is hardly debatable. Whereas an atheistic society of people without a single religious conviction is worthless, if not dangerous.
Also, in regards to no religion leading to bad religion: Nature abhors a vacuum. When a ‘lack of belief’ in “x” exists, other ideologies take it’s place. Again, if you can’t see how a Christian society would have kept out Muslim invaders (see: Poland, see: Hungary), I’m not sure what to tell you.
Agreed. Same with feminists really. If a woman is all about helping other women, then fine, but it seems like they are far more concerned with bringing down men.
I personally enjoy the institution of a formal, conservative religion, the pomp and circumstance, the music, the message. I may not believe in all the fables in the book they read, but trust me, if and when I marry, we will be in church every Sunday.
Understood. I thought you were saying the religion of Islam sprung out of nonbelief, or was caused by any lack of prior religion.
The great formally atheistic states have killed millions of their citizens, deliberately, in the name of mankind.
The informally atheistic states of Europe don’t have children at a rate of replacement.
To me, it’s one illustration of Christ’s saying that the one who has not, shall lose even that which he has.
And how many millions have churches killed in the name of “god” ? Because they did not want to conform to some religious tyrants agenda.
Religion is the most destructive thing in human history.
Islam was copied from christianity and judaism.
Two bad religions combined to make an even worse one.
I wonder why christians are the same way.
Look how they treat anyone who does not agree with them, like atheists, gays, other religions etc.
Christians are the second most hostile and hateful people on earth, they even hate each other.
I have to agree with you that we should just walk our path and leave others alone.
Religion causes more problems than it solves.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
Bill
With your comment above, I’ve must say that I have seen pretty much the exact same sort of comments from other atheists on this website and other websites many times before. These comments and others such as ‘great big fairy in the sky’ and ‘religion cause good people to do bad things’ etc etc. It makes me wonder how honestly and critically you have examined your stance on this matter when the only things you have to say is a regurgitation of anti-Christian generalities which must have been said a million times before. My question to you is (and please be honest with yourself, if you will): do you honestly think that Christianity has not offered net improvements to the world in which we live; and is Jesus Christ, the example which all Christians strive to follow (although often falling short), a good or bad example to follow?
Please, spare me the snark.
A lot fewer.
The atheistical countries don’t want
to reproduce themselves. Maybe the Great Leap Forward wasn’t necessary after all.
It seems to me that atheism explained as simply an absence of belief is rather akin to explaining hunger as simply an absence of food; dehydration as simply an absence of water; suffocation as simply an absence of breath.
From my column, Lines of Departure: http://www.everyjoe.com/2015/02/16/politics/how-to-avoid-breakup-of-united-states/#1
You see things and you say, ‘Why?’ But I dream things that never were, and I
say, ‘Why not?”
–The Serpent, George Bernard Shaw, Back to Methuselah
I find that quote – often misattributed to take-your-pick-of
one of the Kennedys – to be particularly delicious, and on several levels. Not only is it something of a rallying cry
for intellectuals and their running dogs, the intelligentsia,[1]
but, so far as I can tell, not a one of them has a clue about it. In the first place, it’s the Serpent
speaking, which is to say, Satan, tempting Eve to take that bite. Secondly, that gets us not only kicked out of
Paradise, but, in the hands of the modern intellectual, the quote and the
attitude behind it gets us all the way to Hell.
See, for example, Stalinist Russia, China’s Great Leap Forward and its
Cultural Revolution, Cambodia’s Killing Fields, etc. Thirdly, it wouldn’t be so bad if they’d
actually answer the question they ask.
It is, after all, possible that there’s a very good reason why not. But, no, that would interfere with the
fantasy, wouldn’t it? And that fantasy –
well, this week’s fantasy – is all important, isn’t it?
[1] Though
many and perhaps most on the left would scoff at the notion of “right wing”
intellectuals, I assure the reader that the left has no monopoly on
idiocy. Yes, I meant that exactly as
written.
This writer did it for me. There is a reason they use fear to keep people from speaking up; some people will inevitably think about what was said.
I agree, however there are people like me who are non-believers, yet are traditionalists. I fully support Eastern Orthodoxy from the logical point of view, because it is the only solution to the social ills you mentioned. But I cannot make myself believe, that would insult my intelligence.
Im a non-believing supporter so to speak.
Brother, do you know any prayers for young men to become masculine men?
Prayers for young men to become masculine. I admire the sincerity of your intention and its desire, but, how is this, I ask? Most young men are not destined to be priests and monks. You can be a man without the need of prayer surely. Prayer and the need of priests is for the old man’s life and not for young men.
It seems that the most wise and moderate old men I meet usually had quite a wild youth. That is the process of growing old. One that is already ‘born old’ will not have much to offer to those who are born young.
Interesting observation, and quite true. Those who had wild youths who did not then grow out of them also suffer.
I presume GOJ ages gracefully?
One does what one must. On the other hand, it’s not a bad thing, really. If I turn into Gandalf, well, most fates are far worse. Heh.
It was not meant in a derogatory manner. Once my dick becomes all crumpled, I hope I will have made all the experiences I wished to make with it so that I can put it to rest peacefully.
I understood it as benign.
Still in the state of rough polishing of my edge.
I sometimes wonder about this. From earliest childhood I tended to intuitively understand God, and certain of the basic truths. Even in my atheist period, I would engage in certain practices of intellectual and corporal mortification which I later learned to be recommended by philosophers and saints (just little things, I’m not talking about great asceticism). I never had a rowdy youth and had an instinctive contempt for immorality that was not rooted in prudishness or self-righteousness, but a more philosophical understanding of why good morals were good.
I have certainly not been perfect, and in the interior life have often proven myself to be a traitor to graces received, exploring the depths of the soul’s aversion to self-sacrifice even in the midst of its desire to give itself to God. I have often wondered if this experience is analogous to any kind of struggles with conscience that people who live a more exteriorly profligate life may have. I sometimes wonder if I fundamentally misunderstand the nature of others’ spiritual struggle, or if my own struggles in a different form distill the same essence of the struggle experienced by others.
But then, sometimes I realize that all my wondering isn’t accomplishing anything.
I have no frame of reference to answer. All of my challenges at the time were external and wholly of the flesh, e.g. sex, and violence. I have a large intellectual capacity, but at 16 that only engages so far in a community that values strength, valor and battle. So in essence, we are kind of one in the same, on different ends of the equation. It took me a long time to willow out absolute wrong from right, though I’d always felt it innately.
End equation, does it matter? Yes. Insofar as our ability to help others.
The most interesting lives don’t progress along in this naive linear fashion. When I was younger I had shards of maturity and introspection along with total abandonment to the worldly pleasures, especially of sex and alcohol. In my maturer self I’ve become more balanced, harmonious and humorous towards the way of the world, but, I also have shards or fragments from my younger wild “boy” self that trips up the now mature man of the world on occasions. I don’t mind him tripping me up, he’ll always be an integral part of who I am.
You’re correct. All things received by grace are a gift. The immoral person, especially if they’re stupid, doesn’t receive anything by grace, however a man who’s intelligent and sensitive but has strayed off the path will often struggle deeply with their conscience. These two states are obviously quite different in their inception and development, however the results can be analogous if the insights gained develop the soul in question.
This is indeed a profound dilemma. Even among Christians it is often perceived that the “best” testimonies are those who went from filth to Christ. I have such a testimony. Yet my children will not. They will be raised as they ought, protected from sexual immorality, and given a chance to develop before they are sent into the world to fight Satan. They will have “boring” testimonies. Trials build character (Rom5:4), and they will have few.
Many religions solve this by sending their boys and men into the world on missions. It works. There is a rich legacy of men who were raised as my children were and went on to be heroic warriors and inspiring figures.
Cool, thanks for sharing.
Haha. I chuckled. Heroism amuses me these days. I think I already told you I am glad not to be one of your kids on some other comment.
But good point about the trials. I certainly have mine, although they are not exactly ones of whoring around. That is something I keep for the future.
The Catholic Church teaches that prayer, repentance and the spiritual life are absolutely necessary for all men to be saved. Prayer is not for priests and monks only.
Prayer is very interesting as there’s evidence it actually works.
Maybe you grew up in a conservative country with masculine role models, I didn’t have that chance.
As you may know, it’s been a few decades that masculine traits are perceived as a threat in the western world and are ridiculized.
Unconsciously the boys grew up thinking there is something inherently wrong with them.
But then some like me realized pretty quickly that the society is sick and we have been fed lies.
My goal is to erase those years of indoctrinement and become a sane masculine man.
The manosphere helped me tremendously in the previous years but I feel that now only God can teach me how to be a man, hence my question on prayers.
There’s been many studies done over the years that show that praying for people actually helps, even if the people are not aware they’re being prayed for or if they’re atheists. Well, best of luck on your journey.
Thank you Smockingjacket.
Read “The Inferno” by Dante. It is one of the most red pill books ever written and sets a solid philosophical foundation for men trying to find themselves spiritually.
A thoroughly intriguing work of a great Catholic mind. The inferno, if even half true would give one phase to thought. I asked myself after reading it years ago- Could this be but the work of a mere mortal man?
Dante’s Inferno was a masterpiece.
I’m always interested in reading great literature. Will take a look.
Like all great literature you have to set aside a special time each day or week to read it, so, you’re in the right frame of mind to appreciate it. The mastery of his imagery and symbols through the most difficult form of linguistic expression (poetry) is an even greater achievement.
Thanks Tony, I will read that book!
If you wish, read the whole passage, and Let Christ Instruct you how to Pray.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6%3A5-15&version=NIV
Thanks Yup, I’ll look at that!
When you realize that the word “virtue” means “manliness, manly excellence,” and when you realize that the spiritual life and prayer itself is a masculinizing activity, all prayer becomes a way of connecting with our own manliness. But I will give some further advice.
I have found that devotion to saints of particular manliness is helpful; I make it a point to “take counsel” with them at points in the day, to come before them as judges and counsellors of my own manhood, to go before them with the failures I know and to ask them to help me see the failures I know not. I spend a few moments in silence before them, to see if they have anything to say to me, anything they want to bring into my mind. I end by asking them to assist me by their prayers. The saints to whom I am particularly devoted for this purpose, are: Ss. John the Baptist, Joseph (betrothed of the Virgin Mary), Martin of Tours, Lawrence of Brindisi and Emmanuel d’Alzon (who is not officially canonized, but is a holy man whom I regard informally as a saint).
I especially recommend St. Joseph to men who wish to make progress in this, for one should consider this: when our Lord became a human child, of all the men he chose St. Joseph to provide and care for his mother, and the Creator of the world deigned to obey this man as head of his household and learned His trade from him. For this reason St. Joseph is a special patron saint of the Church Militant, as he was trusted to care for Christ on earth, and the Church Militant is Christ’s Body on earth.
Finally, I will share a prayer that I pray every night, first in Latin (for those able and interested), and then in an English translation which emphasizes the virile quality of the prayer.
Domine Iesu Christe, Lux vera illuminans omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum, illumina caecitatem cordis mei, et accende in me ignem ardoris Tui, et dona mihi fidem rectam, spem certam, caritatem perfectam, temperentiam, fortitudinem, sapientiam, iustitiam, [in finem perseverantiam] et reliquas virtutes, per quas intelligam Te timere et Te amare, et Tua praecepta servari. Et cum mihi extrema dies finisque vitae evenerit, angeli pacis me sucipiant et de potestate diaboli eripiant, et merear sanctorum Tuorum consortio in beata requie perfrui, et ad dexteram Tuam collocari. Praesta haec mihi, Filii Dei vivi, Qui dixisti ‘petite, et dabitur tibi,’ Qui cum Deo Patre Coaeternoque Sancto Spiritu semper vivis et regnas Deus, per infinita saecula saeculorum. Amen.”
“O Lord Jesus Christ, True Light enlightening every man that cometh into this world, enlighten the darkness of my heart and kindle within me the fire of Thine ardor. Grant me correct faith, firm hope, perfect charity, temperance, fortitude, wisdom, justice, [final perseverance] and all other manly qualities, by which I may learn to dread Thee, and to love Thee, and to keep Thy commandments. And when my last day and life’s end shall have come upon me, let the angels of peace snatch me from the devil’s power and take me up, that I may take joy in the retinue of Thy saints amidst blessed rest, and be set at Thy right hand. Grant these things to me, O Son of the Living God, Who hast said “Ask, and it shall be given Thee,” and livest and reignest with God the Father and the Co-Eternal, Holy Ghost, God through endless ages of ages. Amen.”
This prayer is a treasure-trove, and I’ll touch on all of its latent meanings in a future article. The bit in brackets is not in the original; it is my own addition. I’ll also say: simply expressing your needs and wishes to God in your own words is quite acceptable, necessary even. But always let us ask God to correct our desires and intentions, inspiring us with the right ones.
Thank you Cui, that’s some precious advice and that’s exactly the kind of prayer I was looking for. I’m going to look up to the saints you mentionned, and as for now I will start to pray the Archangel Michael as it’s one of my middle names.
Cui, what would you recommend as far as research and reading to a young man looking into theology, particularly from a Catholic standpoint? Also, is there a particular version of the Bible I should read? I’m beginning to think my New American Bible isn’t cutting it. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated!
“from whom all fatherhood in heaven and earth derives its name,”
How is it from almost every bible translation I read of this text they place ”family” in place of Fatherhood?
Because there is a massive rebellion against God and Patriarchy afoot. Many so-called Christians are at the forefront of this war.
The Greek word is “patria,” analogous to other languages, where this means “fatherland.” It refers to a group of fellow-descendants reckoned by the father’s line, and by extension, to a clan based around a common patriarch. Especially in the plural, it also means “the offices/duties of fatherhood.” In other cultures, the essentially patriarchal nature of the family is reckognized in the very term, derived from πατήρ, πατρός, “father.” St. Jerome showed this sense by translating it as “paternitas” in the Vulgate – “paternity,” the sense of fatherly care and duty, or the collective term for a family unit/clan centered on one father.
This reminds me: what is the proper exegesis / translation for the Old Testament like the Greek is for the New?
May God correct this error. And if this translation is deliberately done to de-emphasize patriarchy and hence twist the word of God by definition. Then may God heap judgment upon those scholars.
I am furious if this is deliberately done.
What do you identify as the onspring of that rebellion? It must have some logical roots – which likely reveal its underlying validity or invalidity.
Fatherhood is family, in those texts.
Given the Greek word is ”patria” it is referring to Fatherhood more than family.
Good sound philosophy !
Cui Pertinebit, is this you the author?
So much to absorb and ponder. If you didn’t write it, the author has struck my soul. If you did, you have directed God’s word into my heart.
EDIT: See that you’re responding below and I haven’t seen you in a long while, I assume it is you then.
Yeah, you just reminded me that I finally got the gmail address for Aurelius Moner; I suppose I should switch over and comment with that, now!
I’m a long time lurker and new commenter…I happen to agree with Aurelius even if I am Protestant. I think the nature of God is very much the definition of masculinity.
He is.
I used to be a Protestant, and I respect the fact that many Protestants – myself, included, when I was one – are very sincere and are striving to be faithful to the unchanging truth.
I have come to believe that the modern world, and the liberal movement, began with Protestantism, and that everything that has played out since then, is the logical conclusion of Protestantism. But I know how offensive that sounds, and how I would have balked at it, when I was a Protestant. Yet now, it is my firm conviction that if we don’t address the central problem – the tolerance of everyone having private “interpretations” and sufficient competence/authority to interpret the Bible, which leads to everyone having private “truths” (and no authority to gainsay them), which leads to impossible attempts at neutrality on matters of truth in civil society, and the consequent egalitarianism that becomes a tyranny of relativism – we won’t solve the societal problems that beleaguer us at present. Each phase of the revolution is abhorrent to the prior phase, so I know that most Protestants abhor the secularism, Socialism, Communism, social Marxism, etc., that followed, and would be offended at the idea that they were ultimately rooted in problems that began with Protestantism. But that is now my honest conviction.
I hope I can find a way to talk about that with Protestants, man to man, in a way that does not give needless offense, and that communicates the respect I do feel for them in the many positive points they possess. It is difficult to feel that the one thing that needs to be sorted, lies with the group of men who are far closer to you than any other non-Catholic movement.
I am a life long Methodist here, I listen to all you say on this site, and I am not offended. Living in a new city, I have found Methodist churches here to be uber liberal- even accepting gays and women as clergy. One of them had a lesbian preacher! My wife and I have been going to the most conservative one we could find. During one of her friends wedding the pastor began crying “tears of joy”. How pathetic! Even my wife was rolling her eyes. I have considered Catholicism many times over the last couple of years… I have a Catholic buddy who is always reminding me they are the “original” church….
I’m glad to hear I don’t offend. I hope to keep that up. I hope always to challenge and to be clear (and you can’t control how a man will take it), but I want to avoid writing in an objectively offensive way.
I’m also an ex-Protestant, and obviously I endorse the Catholic Church. But, be aware that there’s a crisis in the Church. You won’t really understand the Catholic Faith at this point in time, unless you’re willing to do a lot of the work yourself – the institutions are apostate, and not only will they fail to help, they will often hinder you. Look to the Latin Mass groups only (or the Eastern Rite), and make it a point to read the Church Fathers and Doctors, the Saints’ writings, the Scriptures, etc., regularly. Even that will only give you a sense of the Church’s mind and doctrine. There are other issues in our day involving the validity of the Sacraments, but I’ll let that alone for the moment.
You might also try a Baptist church as well. I was raised in a Methodist church so, like you, I have seen the increase of feminism and liberal ideals within the organization. Baptist churches tend to hold more traditional values. Try a few out, especially around father’s day…gives you a good clue if the feminists have gotten to them or not.
HA! HA! HA! The Catholics are always claiming to be original. Let’s just forget the schism of 1054. Try going to a Catholic church and talk to the priest (The ones I’ve met seem to be pissed off or gay), then go to an Orthodox church and speak to the priest (The ones I’ve met seem to be genuinely concerned about the Proper Way) and see which feels right for you. My bet is you will be blown away by Eastern Orthodoxy.
I was born a Southern Baptist and I will not step foot in one of those self loathing, watered down Marxist buildings. Book of Acts 9:18
Guess it depends on which Baptist church you go to. I have heard some horror stories about Baptist churches ranging from what you describe to one less than a mile from me that sounds like a cult (once you join you can’t leave, etc). The one I attend, thankfully, is neither of those things. It values traditional family roles, teaches straight from the Bible, and holds the husband responsible for leading their household.
I’m going to come across as ignorant (but not disrespectful I hope), but what qualifies as Orthodox? Will the church sign actually say Eastern Orthodox or does it have subsets (think Methodist, Baptist, etc) that they go by?
Yes, the sign should somewhere read Orthodox. However, from what I can surmise nearly ALL churches of whatever persuasion and denomination has become filled with the Smoke of Satan. Study the Stranniki and their spirituality. I do not believe you will be disappointed. Best to you and yours and may God have mercy on all our souls…
What I always found unsatisfying and unfulfilling in Protestantism is the TOTAL LACK of any real spirituality. The difference between Eastern and Western Christianity is that Eastern Christianity is based on spiritualism and Western Christianity is based on The Law! Same as Judaism. Western Christianity is like a courtroom. You have the black robed judge who sits on high and expounds and propounds the law. God is the judge, Satan is the prosecutor wanting to send you to hell and Jesus is the public defender trying to get you off. Why do you think the Holy Bible is codified like a law book.
Eastern Christianity on the other hand views Christianity as Jesus Christ as doctor and healer. Satan is a drug pusher who is selling some of the sweetest sin that you have ever partaken of! Your’e hooked, and because of this you have contracted a deadly disease. It is already too late, Sin WILL kill your temporal body because you are simply too ate up with this cancer/drug (you were born in sin). Christ is here in His compassion to save your REAL body, your Soul. And the ONLY way to do this is to heal your maladies by rejecting the drugs and the drug pusher and live with the Doctor in the spa/sanatorium known as Christ’s Church.
I hope this helps and the very best to you and yours!
The Catholics are the original church, and so are the Orthodox. The fact that they are in schism doesn’t mean that one or the other lost the original claim. The Catholic Church itself recognizes this fact.
Great explanation, thank you
Thanks for the wealth of information.
Also, spot on about “everyone (Protestants) has their own interpretation of the bible.” My mother in law recently left my father in law for frivolous reasons. She immediately moved to our city and is in our church every time the doors open. She did it because her friends at their old church (all divorced) convinced her it was a good idea. She keeps piles of “Christian self help” books. I scan them and can immediately tell they are written by people with neither competence nor in my opinion divine authority. Welcome to the new Protestantism I suppose.
Yup. “There is a way that seemeth right to a man, but the end thereof…”
As an atheist teen turned Prot adult I recently considered returning to the RCC of my youth. I wish the RCC was the solution to what ails Protestantism and the world. It’s just not. I admit that it is rare to find a Protestant Reformer still praying the the RCC would reform, but I am one of them. I pray the the RCC would reform and that we would all unite as one. I pray that we would also reunite with the East. I think it can be done.
The RCC is not the only orthodox religion; not even the only orthodox Christian one.
I’d say that the modern thing calling itself “Catholicism” is not the Catholic Church. By the 1970s, the Catholic Faith had been given up everywhere except in the Eastern Rite and a few hangers-on in the Latin Rite. Now, the faithful are very few indeed. I encourage you to consider the Catholic Church again! But, look to the SSPX or certain Sedevacantist groups (plenty of them are nuts, so don’t take that as an endorsement of any/all of them!); your local “Catholic” parish does not even use the rites, laws, customs or language of the Church, let alone her doctrine.
The eastern orthodox churches have been taken over by Marxism as well, even freakin ROCOR. All the mainline denominations of Christianity as well as most of the 30,000 different flavors of Protestantism bow low and kiss the ring of Mammon.
Sedevacantist
This is where I’ve started looking. Vatican II was the deal breaker, and Dad Frank was the clincher.
I’ll have to respectfully disagree with this line of sentiment. Saying the Catholic Church is no longer “catholic” is simply not a logical argument. I’ll agree that the Church currently is not the paragon of virtue and holiness that it should be, but the Church’s current troubles pale in comparison to the ones it experienced in the past. But then again, I’m relatively new to Catholicism, and maybe I’m missing something in the arguments against the Church other than Mass being done in the vernacular instead of the old Tridentine Mass.
I’ll ask your forgiveness in advance, for what will be a lengthy reply. Readers who have no interest in getting into the weeds of Catholicism in the present age will probably not want to bother reading all of it… and may not even know what I’m talking about, through most of it.
I would say that you are missing something, and truly, I say it with respect. I thank God for the time I spent as an Orthodox Christian, in the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches, because it put me in touch with the bedrock Christian doctrine and practice of the first millennium, which only Traditional Catholics still experience in the West. As you can imagine, if one’s parents stop passing on a tradition, and then that generation fails to pass it on to their children, the grandchildren will now have been raised in a way that is completely out of touch with that tradition, for even the grandparents remember it only as a memory from their early lives. The fact is that the majority of Catholics imposed/accepted a radically altered faith and practice in the late 1960s. People born around the same time as my mother would still have been small children, when the novelties kicked in. Her generation was raised without any contact with the prior tradition – or worse, was raised in a climate where that tradition was vilified – and now our generation has to face the fact that, if we want to know it, we will have to dig deep into the matter and crack open some old books to do so. We literally don’t know what we’re missing.
And, before one says that such a change could not happen: the Scriptures and Tradition tell us that it certainly will have happened, near the end of time; more than this, the popes warned that it was imminent for the past two centuries, and all the recent apparitions of the Virgin – La Salette, Fatima, Akita, etc. – said that it was upon us. We live in a time of defection from the ancient Faith.
If you acquaint yourself more thoroughly with the Tradition of the Church, you will realize that recent years have seen a disruption of absolutely unprecedented proportions. The Church has never seen an apostasy and crisis such as she now experiences, which is worse than the Arian or any other crisis of the past; it goes far beyond Mass being done in the vernacular; the doctrine and practice of the Church has been assaulted in her vitals. What most people think of as Catholicism nowadays, is a syncretistic form of Christianity that restricts itself (and only barely, at that) to the morality of Natural Law. But the peculiarly Catholic doctrines – the supernatural spirit of the Evangelical Counsels, the dogmatic teachings on the Social Kingship of Christ, the rather exclusive soteriological doctrine of the Church – in short, everything that makes a Catholic a Catholic, rather than just a very traditional Lutheran or Anglican – has now been suppressed.
On that point, just to give you a taste of what we’re really dealing with: the rite now being celebrated in the vernacular is not just a vernacular version of the perennial rite of Mass. It is a completely new rite. And it is not only the rite for the Mass that changed, but for all sacraments and even the usual blessing (holy water, etc.). Now, the Council of Trent plainly defined that “if anyone should say that the customary and approved rites of the Catholic Church can be changed into other, new ones, by any pastor whomsoever of the Churches, let him be anathema.” That is, the Church anathematizes not only those who change the rites or use the changed rites, but even those who merely say that it is possible for them to be changed. And an anathematized person is outside of the Church, even if he continue to hang out in it and say “Mass” regularly.
As you learn more about Sacramental theology, you will also understand that, beyond merely incurring automatic excommunication, those who change the rites of the Church run a great risk, if the new rite that they compose fails to contain the elements defined as necessary for their validity. This is why we stick to the traditional rites; we know that they are valid. The most horrific element of the change of rites, involves the rite of Episcopal Consecration. The consecratory prayer of this rite was so flawed and so apparently lacking in one particular, necessary element (that of univocal expression of the sacrament’s nature), that a group of high-ranking clergy (including Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – the top man, after the pope, for doctrinal teaching) intervened to express their worries that the consecratory prayer lacked the elements needed for validity. They were silenced with the claim that the prayer had been taken from an Eastern Liturgy for the consecration of a bishop, and the Eastern Rites are known to be valid, so out of sensitivity to the Eastern Churches we should show our brotherliness and accept it peacefully.
Well, after it was a fait accompli, it came out that the prayer used was drastically shortened and imprecisely translated, and – most damningly – was actually from a rite for promoting an already consecrated bishop, rather than a rite for consecrating a bishop in the first place. If the implication is not clear, I’ll make it so: it is essentially certain that the new rite for consecrating bishops is not valid, and does not consecrate bishops at all. And consequently, no sacrament celebrated by these abortive bishops (including priestly ordinations) could be valid. It would certainly explain a lot, about the radically altered nature of the “church” in our days, if we realized that the episcopacy (and priesthood) is essentially absent from the Latin Rite, apart from the SSPX and Sedevacantist groups, who are the only groups who still care about this matter and who, tellingly, still issue orthodox doctrinal statements. Compare the letter of bishop Fellay and the SSPX after the “Synod on the Family,” with Francis’ encyclicals, and ask yourself who sounds like a Catholic bishop.
There are other grievous matters, such as the fact that the New Code of Canon Law permits things that the Tradition of the Church has always prohibited as nefas by Divine (i.e., unchangeable) Law. You are right to point out, that the Catholic Church cannot fail to be Catholic… and, as you learn more about the teaching of the Church on this matter, the nature of the Infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, etc., you will see that this is the very crux of the crisis: men who publicly break with the Magisterium on defined points of Divine and Catholic Faith (the “theological notes” are another thing nobody speaks of, anymore), the Church teaches us, automatically excommunicate themselves and cease to be members of the Catholic Church, *even if they are popes.* Many Catholics think this is unthinkable – isn’t it practically the definition of Catholicism, that one is with the pope? Well, it is… but most Catholics do not know the teaching of the Church on the nature of heresy and of Papal Infallibility, and mistakenly think that a pope cannot be an heretic. But, he can; far from being a crazy idea, St. Robert Bellarmine and other eminent theologians have made very lengthy treatises on the issue; their teaching was reaffirmed by no less than the official Relator of the First Vatican Council – namely, that any public heretic, even a pope, is automatically severed from the Church, even if the Church never makes an official declaration of the fact. Bd. Pope Pius IX reaffirmed this as well, in connection with the definition of Infallibility at Vatican I.
So, as you may be beginning to see, the current crisis is a crisis of apocalyptic proportions. But it would be a long(er) conversation to go into all of it here. I plan to discuss it in a future post, probably for Septuagesima Sunday. Come to think of it, that’s another hint that something is odd – Septuagesima is another of the very ancient observances of the Church, which many of today’s faithful will never have even heard of… because the Novus Ordo abolished it (along with the Offertory, Whitsuntide, the ancient liturgies of the Triduum, the solemnities of the Saints, etc., etc., etc.).
If you want to acquaint yourself with some of the major problems, I recommend two books and two videos. The books are: “The Catechism of the Crisis,” by Fr. Matthias Gaudron, which is an easy read, and “Iota Unum” by Romano Armerio, a tougher read. The videos, are:
(This is really a long audio file of two lectures, very worth an attentive listen.)
This is a shorter (but still very thorough) video by Fr. Cekada. I spent almost a year reading the arguments, pro and con, for the various explanations of the Church’s present crisis. I wish I had come across these two videos first, for they lay out the arguments that are correct and truly irrefutable – most of the other stuff I read, pro and con, had a serious flaw here or there. These videos are pretty airtight.
That’s the truth, though I think if I’d been born earlier, even John Paul II’s antics (which Frank certainly imitated during his tenure as a “bishop” in Argentina) – allowing heathens to worship their idols upon the altars of Catholic shrines in Assissi, kissing Qurans, receiving blessings from bare-breasted witches, etc. – would have been convincing. No “pope” in history – not even the Borgia pope – has ever done such evil things, things which amount to formal acts of apostasy, a renunciation of Christ. But by the time I was old enough to understand who he was, JPII was already in his decrepitude, and I was not yet a Catholic.
Indeed. I used to be in ROCOR. I left it because I was drawn to the Catholic Church, but this also came right after I had been solicited to pay money for my ordination. So, I would have been leaving it anyway, for one jurisdiction or another.
“- the tolerance of everyone having private “interpretations” and sufficient competence/authority to interpret the Bible, which leads to everyone having private “truths” (and no authority to gainsay them)” ~ Protestants rail against Popery but each one makes themselves their very own Pope who is the only one qualified to properly interpret Scripture. I agree 100% with your assessment, the Protestant Reformation sowed the seeds of destruction for both Christianity and all the members of Christendom. Especially Whitey…
Excellent point sir.
And the corruption of the Catholic church sowed the seeds of the reformation.
I do agree; finding a way to have a frank and friendly conversation about it with Protestants is another matter. I used to be a Protestant; I’m aware that many of them are strong opponents of our modern evils. I don’t want to piss them off pointlessly – but, as CS Lewis said, if one finds that he’s gone down a wrong path, the best thing is to turn around. I think maybe we’ve come to a time, when good Protestant men may be ready to have a serious conversation about the spiritual crisis in the West, given the complete collapse of all the mainline sects – and even, I hate to say it, the usurpation and eclipse of the Catholic Church.
THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELLS YOU!! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The article – associating acting with masculinity and being acted on (passivity) with femininity – reminded me of the interesting Roman perspective on masculinity as it portrayed to sex.
There was no strict divide in ‘sexual orientation’ as we know it in our society. The high status man was the one who penetrated (acted), while the woman or slave was the one being penetrated (acted upon).
That’s true. I think the modern concept of “sexuality,” especially as a defining element of one’s personhood and nature, was developed precisely as a tool to isolate persons, polarize them, and energize emergent identity politics, especially against the traditional view that focused on the intrinsic nature of moral choices, rather than contingent circumstances.
Didn’t really read all of this, so feel free to discount my opinion as uninformed. Nonetheless, here’s my opinion.
I bow to nothing, human or superhuman. If your god exists, he must impose his will upon me, because I will never acknowledge the superiority of anyone or anything outside of myself except when compelled by overwhelming force.
EDIT: I’ve now read the whole article and my opinion hasn’t changed.
You’ll get what you want; but you won’t want it then.
Have a care, mate.
I’ll take my chances.
That is allowed to you.
If you don’t read “all of this” for anything offered to you, it’s rather hard to accept anything outside of yourself.
I find it rather hard to accept anything outside of myself in any case.
If you don’t agree with it, then don’t comment. That’s the beauty of ROK.
Tu Quoque.
There’s a difference between making an actual, honest argument, or an honest seeker who is interested in improving their life, and an attention whore who walks into the house with dog feces on their shoes like a little child.
I have no problem with the former (even if they do not share my faith), but the latter smacks of Leftism and feminists.
I’m no Leftist, my friend. If only you knew.
You comment like one.
Sadly, many here revert to automatically calling those they disagree with leftists and feminists, just as easily as a woman will try to deflect an argument and imply you are gay or make another ad hominem.
I may not agree with your comments here, but I frankly couldn’t care whether you are Kim Jung Un or Adam Smith–your ideas stand and fall on their own. Plus as a classical liberal, I don’t even consider the “leftist” charge to be a criticism.
Of course, one need only look at this article to see that people in a group have varying opinions, and therefore just because someone is a “patriarchist” doesn’t make them always right on every issue, nor does being a “feminist” make them always wrong (I’ll point out the recent case of sexologist Dr. Ruth attacking the notion of women relabeling regret sex as rape). So it’s quite silly to throw such labels around and act as if they determine what is right or wrong.
That’s what I can’t understand about the common American understanding of liberalism. Most Americans who label themselves as right-wing conservatives do not even understand that their beliefs and values ARE Liberal. I personally do not like democracy or the leveling effect American Yankees have had on the world. Reminds me of a movie.
Lestat:
Lord, what I wouldn’t give for a drop of good old-fashioned Creole blood.
Louis:
Yankees are not to your taste?
Lestat:
Their democratic flavor doesn’t suit my palate, Louis.
I believe this was all done be design. Look at any of the great writings on totalitarianism and the first target and most important target is speech.
By completely subverting and changing the definition of words such as “liberal” and “freedom”, changing the department of war to the department of defense, restricting protesters and marchers and corralling them into “free speech zones”, all this was done in order to destroy human liberty and increase totalitarianism.
The Islamic rebels are supposedly the enemy, but they are now the Oceania of 1984. We’ve never been at war with IS. We’ve always been at war with IS.
What movie is that?
Tu quoque is “if a rapist says rape is illegal and immoral, then rape cannot be illegal and immoral because a rapist says it”.
Try harder.
And you will be compelled by overwhelming force soon enough.
You say Bronze Age texts, as to sort of make us appear antiquarian at best and ignorant at worst. Just because of how old something is does not negate the truth which my lie within its texts or principles and by the same operational motive, feminism, hipsters, gay marriage are all relatively new in the human experience, terribly new but nevertheless its newness does not negate these people and practices as utterly false. We cannot prove rational by the confines of modal logic or the scientific method that God exists because God lies outside these boundaries. The reality of set-theory logic and the scientific method are elements confined to a terranean existence, an all too human existence where we mortals are confined by time and ultimately death.
These douche bags don’t seem to have a problem with Socrates, Aristotle and Plato. I guess ancient philosophy is alright but anything that hints at the Divine is delusional. Hell, even the Buddha, Prince Siddhārtha Gautama did not deny the existence of God. He claimed that God was bound by a conditioned state and therefore even God was subject to entropy but he never dared to expound the idea that a belief in God is a delusion and therefore does not exist. The original Buddhist teachings were philosophical, not religious.
The believers in Socrates etc do not use the government to force their beliefs onto others by force or legislation like the douche bag religious assholes do.
Are you smart enough to see the difference?
The root of the entire problem is christians and muslims trying to force their beliefs onto others who do not want them
IT IS BEYOND ME WHY THIS IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND !
If you do not like being hassled for your religion, then learn how to ind your own business and keep it to yourself.
If you do not like your “rights” being “attacked”, then stop attacking the rights of others.
Do what your own scripture tells you to do, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
Again, WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ?
Yours is the way of weakness. Desire for freedom from creating any enduring structure for meaningless distractions ensures societies of strength and purpose rising to conquer you. Why is this so hard to understand?
Maybe they’re really just mad that God won’t let them have gay butt sex.
In your second paragraph you contradict yourself from one sentence to the next. Every man is doomed to contradict himself sooner or later given enough time in his pondering. But your speed at it is staggering ;-).
So you think you are entitled to authority over everything? You were given a mind, and it was nurtured. You did not forge it from nothing, so stop acting like you have. Sheer arrogance.
The natural conclusion of the Patriarchy is a government founded upon the principles of Monarchy. The Western World collapsed in 1914-1918 when the European monarchies of Central Europe and Russia collapsed through the cunning and perniciousness of their enemies who operated from financial centres and bases in NYC and London. The very structure of heaven is a monarchy, the very structure of the family unit is a monarchy (thus men referring to their homes as castles). The new Satanic age has ushered in not only impossible beliefs that can be disproved by mere observation but has instituted fallacies which cannot not be easily disproved such as democracy. Democracy is the great lie of the modern age, and the forebearer to feminism. To reject democracy, especially you Americans, you have to come to the fundamental truth that the founding of your nation was a Freemasonic rebellion against the natural order of monarchy for a republic founded on the ideals of mammon. In other words the fruits of this rebellion have ripened and you are beginning to see the dysfunctional nature of your Congress, how international finance run by a certain clique prefers democracy because it is the system in which government can be most easily bought and manipulated. So in due time, carry out the testament of patriarchy to its full conclusion, a monarchical society.
This is all very true, save for one, little thing: I think the shortcomings and incoherent premises of Democracy are easy to demonstrate.
Which goes to my original premise, instead of observing them, they have to be demonstrated to prove there fallaciousness. Man cannot exist as the leader in his home when the vote is given to those who either by emotion and/or intellect should not be voting. Furthermore, the vanity in the notion that everyone born is guided with the virtue of deciding government is a vanity like no other. Many people when it comes to their vanity have to be convinced instead of observing. Usually when one holds up the mirror, they are obstinate to the first critique, thus is the mindset of the democratic body politic. Don’t even get me started on the type of person who’d prostitute his morals, principles and the dignity of his family to high finance and industry and the scrutiny of the baser instincts of the masses and mass media just to win office which thereby he’d be directed by these same benefactors. Just a low system with the most ambitious of scummiest types that could be curtailed by the law of royal primogeniture.
I agree completely, on all points.
Absolutely right. With a true monarchy you will at least get a fair share of your good and bad leaders throughout time to keep things balanced. Here we have the same rotten apples rotating stations that will only progressively worsen the state of affairs of man with no recourse. The last resort is for nature to step in and correct things by showing them their vanity and who’s boss.
Great article
Having thought about this for a while – this is an incredibly weak defense of any position, let alone one that’s evidentially defensible. .
Western Philosophy has advanced a long way since the blind acceptance of bronze-age texts. If your whole defense of maleness depends on this, you’re frankly not fit to speak for me, or for anyone else that values evidence.
That doesn’t make me a socialist, a feminist, or any of the things that would immediately disqualify me from consideration (do I need to show the blood I shed in these fights?) It just makes me a defender of cold, hard evidence.
What disqualifies you from serious consideration, are:
1) Your pre-emptive, passive-aggressive expectation of “disqualification” (on the basis of our inevitable failure to understand your struggle) expressed with a grand air of pseudo-intellectual signaling, all of which reads like a Liberal monologue, despite the breathless avowals that you are a super-serious dude.
2) Your unwarranted assumptions and critical misunderstandings that betray the absence of even the first movements of critical thought – for example, saying my “whole defense of maleness depends on this,” when this article is not a defense of anything, let alone maleness, and doesn’t represent my “whole” sense of anything.
3) Your straw-men and reductions to absurdity – “blind acceptance of bronze-age texts.” There’s an element of red herring in there, to boot.
4) The fact that tooting your own horn (“I’m a defender of cold, hard evidence”) is more important to you than reading and understanding the article. The article is a social commentary on the link between the rejection of God and higher ideals with the rejection of legitimate authority and standards more generally. Major elements of the commentary apply whether God exists or not; I happen to believe He does, which lends the commentary a special urgency in my case. But even a man who viewed religion as a merely utilitarian, or simply inevitable, social phenomenon, should be able to appreciate the connections.
5) The socially clueless way in which you mistake the mere mention of God for an argument in favor of God, and the implicit arrogance in the assumption that others must always be justifying themselves to you on your pet subject.
How do you expect men to respond to you, when you speak to them like a freshman feminist trolling the campus’ basketball courts?
“Western Philosophy has advanced a long way since the blind acceptance of bronze-age texts.”
If you knew your history of Western Philosophy any better than the standard fedora atheist, you’d know “blind acceptance” of “bronze-age texts” is actually the aberration, not the norm, when it comes particularly to mystical interpretation of the Bible.
It seems to be the standard retort from these type of atheists (not all): all Christians blindly follow some old writings in an outdated book. They never view us as human beings who might have our own thoughts and views about life. Fact is, every Christian I know has had their struggles following their faith and had to do some deep soul-searching to determine if what they’ve been following is indeed true, myself included. I don’t believe in anything that doesn’t make sense and there are simply enough unanswered questions regarding the atheist’s version of how everything came to be to make me doubt them. Doesn’t mean we can’t all be civil towards each other.
It’s okay, you don’t need to bother arguing with him. He made his blog post yesterday, and now it’s the current day and hour, so his post is obviously wrong. Even he must understand that.
Arguing with a Marxist is like trying to snuggle with a porcupine…
Hah! You could replace Marxist with Feminist or SJW as well.
you could also easily replace atheists with christians here.
I would rather live in the bronze age than in a worker’s paradise.
Great. What happened 0.00001 seconds before the big bang? Just cold hard evidence, if you please.
I’ve been waiting for something like this since the first time I came across the manosphere. This is not only the right direction; it’s the only direction.
That’s very high praise; thank you.
I’ve been encouraging something along these lines for a while, but people haven’t been receptive– too pessimistic, too egoistic, just not ready.
But it seems that with time, as people try other things — as they try new ways to gratify their desires and repeatedly come up short, finding themselves still dissatisfied and lost — they straggle toward the truth.
There is no way to succeed individually, in this culture, unless you define down “success” so low that any worthy man would spit on such a success . . . the only hope is that enough people change their values to present a serious challenge to the culture.
Thanks again.
Excellent article. I do appreciate the the concept of masculine struggle towards the spirit of a deity, but i cannot buy the christian god. He is created by a people of a different spiritual inclination than myself and my people. We fought a civil war trying to stop it. We lost, but only accepted christianity to a certain degree after Luther had re-interpreted its whole base.
And the western world had its explosive development when we rediscovered the classical and pre-christian Europe in the renaissance.
But as the article states: To develop your masculinity as the creator: Priceless. I have been hit to the ground enough times throughout the ages trying to show even the smallest sympathy towards feminism.
Classical and pre-Christian Europe was, if anything, better understood in the High Middle Ages. The Renaissance was the period when people first started to be humanists, and began to distract themselves from spiritual ideals with a focus on earthly things. This did lead to some advancements in material things (medicine and science), but it is unambiguous that the philosophical, spiritual and moral life of the West began the downward slide which is now entering a critical phase, at that same time.
In my view, God is the God of all men. He is not a “Jewish” God. His choice of the Jews does not denote that they are the best people; if anything, it denotes that they may be the worst (given God’s penchant for bringing weakness out of strength, glory out of shame). Christianity certainly preserves what was best in the spirit of European Paganism better than any neo-Pagan reconstruction ever will, and many of the concepts of Classical Paganism are fully integrated into Christian prayer and spirituality in a profounder way than Neopagans even understand, in my experience.
All that said, I have much in common with a virtuous Neopagan, and infinitely prefer them to humanists and leftists! So, walk the path of the truth as best you see it, and stay true to conscience. The man that does that, in my view, God can help.
I enjoy your writing. You remind me of my younger self when I was a theology student.
I feel ROK is written for much younger men than I but what I enjoy is the challenge to be the best you can, whether it be on the spiritual path, or through martial arts, or through freelancing. (I’ll ignore the regrettable Kratom articles for now …)
Keep it up!
fascinating article as always, and some of the comments are very interesting too. To be honest I wasn’t that familiar with the church’s position on this (obviously it may not be the position in much of the ‘modern’ church).
The nature of divinity in relationship to gender is probably one of the biggest theological issues out there. Nor is it simply a metaphysical one (unless you’re saying God literally has a beard or something). Even in ‘spirituality’ that opposes the catholic or more traditional protestant christianity gender and divinity is key (although the conclusions may be reversed). In the freemasonic tradition the G in the centre of the compass is supposed to denote not God, but the Generative principle and this may reflect the mystic / esoteric position that generative, sexual energy is the primary force in the universe, something which may or may not be at odds with the catholic reading of things, but certainly is with regard to the spin which alternative / esoteric spiritualities put on it (note the ‘tits’ on the picture of the baphomet below)
Since the time of Constantine I the Christianity has been corrupted and as such has been used to enslave and corrupt the common people. The history of the early Christianity up until the 3 century has been erased.
Even the cross is not a Christian symbol but Druid (pagan) symbol. The depiction of Christ on the cross is a mockery. The fish and the circle are original Christian symbols.
Not sure where you got this from, but it sounds like the drivel I was taught growing up in a fundamentalist Baptist church. Yes, the fish is one of the original symbols of the church. The cross would have been a strange and ludicrous symbol in that time frame, as it was a common instrument of punishment within the areas that Christianity thrived. It was only long after the practice of crucifixion was abandoned did it become a symbol of Christianity.
Comparing the use of the cross with Druidism is equally ludicrous.
He was nailed on a tree not on a cross.
I once believed this. But, then, I started reading and realized that there are many Christian writings from the first three centuries, plenty of sacred Christian images in the catacombs, etc. We are not left guessing, as to what they believed. They were Catholics.
You need to go back to your former self. You are a follower of Anthony who was an Egyptian hermit and the founder of the Roman monastic orders.
He was the patron saint of … pigs. Owing to the fact that the Roman monks never bathed, nobody ever got too close to them to hear what they were saying.
Articles on game and self improvement is what drew me to ROK (making fun of feminism is fun too, for a little bit) but these kinds of articles put ROK in a whole different league.
A well-written and thought-provoking article. Excellent work Aurelius.
Eh, I get what you are saying here, but… human???
A bureaucracy created by humans? A nightmare? A….disaster?
Commenters here appear to have a very poor understanding of what Atheism is.
It’s simply the lack of belief in a divine intelligence who intervenes here on Earth. One can still believe in a God without intervention – a Deist – and technically still be an Atheist.
Buddhism – a religion I believe Roosh briefly took an interest in – is also considered Atheistic for this reason.
This would be like saying that people who complained about the atrocities of Communism didn’t have a very good understanding of Communism, simply because the one part of some dictionary’s definition of Communism made no mention of global mass-murder.
You have cited one possible concept of atheism. Atheism has many faces, and more than one working definition, if we consider its manifestations in the real world. The fact is that we live in a Western Civilization that is busily denying its heritage and founding principles – and, therefore, for many atheists, the lived experience of atheism is a direct rejection and antipathy for God, especially as revealed in Christian theology, far beyond a mere disinterested “lack of belief” in something. I might as well say that Deism is a “lack of belief” in atheism. For many atheists, atheism is a positive hostility to theism and to theists, and so vociferously so, that everyone is only too aware of the fact.
My concern with modern Christianity is it side steps completely the issues surrounding the more hard decisions God has to make in the OT. I feel that men are not exposed to this and thus lose out on connecting with the masculinity of God. I am more at terms now with why the events in the book of Joshua had to take place as a rebellious cultural Christian; than when I attended church regularly and was a happy clappy Christian. The tough questions are avoided in the name of more bums on seats than dealing with any real spiritual battles that one faces in life.
Very true. We have come to a time when the majority of Christians, even those calling themselves the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, are apostates. They run the institutions, and so serious Christians who wish to hold to the Apostolic Faith have to resign themselves to working in a state of considerably greater confusion and disarray.
I currently attend an Anglican church and popped along to an Alpha Course a couple of weeks it was running. One week, the sheer lack of masculinity in the room was appalling, it was like a WI meeting when I consider myself to be the most masculine man in the room, by a country mile, I fear for Western Christianity. There is little no no aggression/assertiveness in any position/belief.
This is why I’m also somewhat drawn to the Norse Gods, Odin and Thor are examples of Wisdom and Strength, something I admire and try to emulate. It’s only my religious experiences with Christianity that keep me going some weeks. I would love to hear more and discuss more the parts of the bible where wisdom and strength, courage and martial virtue are important and valued as men of God.
Also look to Church history and the examples of many very manly, very uncompromising saints.
St Michael is a personal favourite, but he’s not human. St George is another favourite.
Consider also St. Joseph – the man whom God Incarnate chose to be head of the household, into which He would be born.
Also, royal saints – Bd. Karl, St. Henry II, St. Louis IX – and other martial saints, including St. Igantius of Loyola, a knight who found religion while recovering from a cannonball injury that had been operated on without anesthesia… even St. Francis soldiered as a young man.
Excellent writing. I’m still a Prot., but my favorite writers on faith have been Catholics for about the last 6-7 years. Partly because most of the Protestant writers these days have no philosophy; little history; and weak, feel-good theology. OTOH, Catholic philosopher Josef Pieper’s writings helped me through both wit some depression issues and as a response to objectivism and atheist philosophy. The Catholic writers I have encountered have all been excellent and well organized in thought.
That played a role in my conversion, as well. It is one of the benefits of having a continuous, 2000 year tradition that insists on fidelity to what was handed on before from the Apostles, and only allows the cream to rise to the top, in terms of doctrinal and philosophical reflections on this tradition. It makes it difficult for people to fly by the seat of their pants, or to “slum it” in vague hocus-pocus, doctrinally speaking.
The problem people run into as they thirst for God is that the idea in their mind becomes a substitute for God.
The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. I have experienced grace through Christ but avoid the magic like a zen Buddhist, and my worship is formless. The part of you that has words is not your soul, so better not to leave the worship to the words in my own opinion anyways. In that way maybe I am an atheist. Not that I feel like killing any folks who say different. Folks who most want to tell you their ideas about God normally least want to hear yours.
Apophatic theology (negative theology) is a part of Christian tradition. The idea within the Christian tradition is that forms and ideas about God point us toward God, but ultimately must be let go because they are inadequate. Many of the fathers of the church, especially Greeks emphasized the unknowability of God. Gregory of Nyssa is a good example. I would recommend reading some of the Greek fathers.
Very true; but many people overlook how central – and, actually, how much more intensely developed and emphasized this doctrine is – in the Latin tradition by such writers as St. John of the Cross and St. Thomas Aquinas. As a former Orthodox Christian myself, and avid student of the Fathers and the Philokalia, one element of my conversion to Catholicism was the realization that everything taught by the Greek Fathers is present also in St. John of the Cross and St. Thomas Aquinas, often with an admirably greater clarity that could only come after several more centuries of theological reflection, and the development of the keenly cutting scholastic method.
Thanks for both of your replies. I’ll look those up. Right now I have a four year old who needs to get to bed.
Sure. And, just to be clear: none of that was to depreciate the inestimable contribution of the Greek Fathers. Who could speak a word against them? May they pray for us!
It is true that the most authentic form of communication with God comes when not only words, but the finite concepts denoted by them, cease to be present to the mind. Yet most, and certainly beginners, are very likely to be led astray in the higher forms of prayer if they do not begin with something more discursive.
God has always communicated to us by symbols – the creation is itself a finite medium of communication, and then there are the Scriptures, the Tradition, etc. The concepts denoted in kataphatic theology – i.e., positive terms positively describing God – are true in a sense by the analogy of being. It is not misleading, per se, to direct the mind to God initially by such concepts, and, again, for beginners it is necessary that a closer approach to the truth be made initially by forming more correct ideas through the positively expressed dogmata. But afterwards an higher form can come, which does not set dogmata aside as wrong, but penetrates to the realities that are denoted by those terms without being exhaustively described by them.
Does anybody know of a Catholic or Episcopalian church in the DC area that follows these principles, without being too, as Marcus Aurelius puts it, “superstitious”? I’m an ex-Evangelical who is agnostic (at most) , but am interested in at least attending.
The irony is, that after that incident, you, W, created an organization that somehow Americans hate even more than the IRS–the TSA!
“If we wonder why the world rejects patriarchy and authority, I will tell you: it is because it first rejected the High King Himself.”
I’m not a very pious man…but this…this line sent shivers down my spine. Excellently written.
This article was thought-provoking and beautifully written.
Just wanted to say that I really appreciate these articles here. I was half considering starting my own branch/site (I still might) in the manosphere that was directed and prioritized these types of articles and to have a traditional Catholic slant. I think the manosphere was missing a big piece and this fills a lot of it.
Instead of being focused on satisfying our lustful fallen human nature with “getting laid” (thankfully there are less of these articles now) we should be focusing and striving on spiritual advancement towards the truth and start to try building a moral society, we as men can do this if there are enough of us willing to try.
Aurelius I may try reaching out to you specifically through your website if there’s a way to message you. Thanks again for writing this. Best wishes and kind regards to my fellow men out there.
Sorry to just now get this; I’ve been a combo of sick/busy since Christmastime, but my gmail uses this same handle, so you can get me there.
I just can’t do magical thought, fam. We now know the bible is not factual or literal so . .That’s that. I can’t make myself believe in an afterlife or the supernatural.
The major factor that shifted me to the alt-right away from the left was that I could no longer make myself believe things that I knew deep down were not true whether it was in communism, racial equality or god.
To those atheists who argue that God is the equivalent of magical thought I would like you to consider a few questions.
1. Can you demonstrate scientifically that your senses provide you with a complete and accurate perception of reality?
Now I would argue that it can’t be done. To make things worse it can be demonstrated that given our senses are not always accurate (optical illusions and the need for instruments by which pilots can operate their aircraft) nor complete. To justify the incompleteness argument. Consider the blind man who has been that way from birth. He has no way of knowing stars exist beyond the say so of those who call themselves the sighted ones.
What this means is that the atheist who says that God does not exist is in fact admitting that they do not have the senses to perceive the existence of God beyond the say so of those that may have the senses to perceive His existence.
Have a very Merry Christmas Sam.