140 thoughts on “Pious Aeneas And A Passiontide Reflection On Impiety”

1. These posts are tremendously valuable.
   I look forward to reading more.

   1. Indeed. Another reason to look forward to Fridays.

   2. Thanks, guys.

2. Yes, knowing our progenitors, “mothers” and “fathers”, allows us to have gratitude for what we are and how they made us possible. With this we can move forward as progenitors of something healthy. I view piety as the starting point for “self” love. Plato and Hegel do a great job with this. “Moderns” move forward without a road map, directionless into outer space and darkness into… nothing aka nihilism.

3. Solzhenitsyn is the major contemporary writer with enough guts to address our 20th Century lack of I’m piety.

4. So white knight for cunts too stupid to rescue in the name of saving civilization?
   That’s not christianity. That’s not game. wtf

   1. Don’t confuse white knighting with piety.
      The way I see it, being pious (according to this article) means delivering your duty-bound obligations towards others with honor and loyalty. You are duty-bound to your higher power, family, loved ones, friends, associates, country etc. A LOT of men here do not realize that as men, we are bound by duty and responsibility towards others whether we like it or not.
      In the example of Aeneas, he delivered his duty-bound obligations honorably by escorting those less-fortunate to safety. That was his duty as a father, husband and son. He didn’t stop to pick up the neighbourhood slut he banged last week.

   2. Where did I say, or even imply, that?

      1. The video is stromfront lite. Save white poosy. Save civilization.

         1. The video said we needed to deny women political power and refuse them a say in public affairs. I don’t know how that translates into “white knighting for c*$ts.”

5. atheism and “science” are the new gods – created by man in his own image and likeness, a blasphemous and sorry caricature of the Ever Unknowable.

   1. And with Politically Correctness, they form the new “holy” Trinity.

      1. nice!

      2. Also, the new inquisition is now fighting any heretic that seems to have one of the following traits:
         – Homophobic
         – Misogynist
         – Racist
         – Antisemite
         If people think you are one of those you’re already finished.

   2. And divershitty and multikult are the new golden calfs.

   3. I’m an atheist, but I consider religion a huge part of society and a feeling of community. I might start telling people I am religious from now on in order to help the cause. I do not believe, but I need to try to model something to the others who have no core values at all.

      1. most atheists can’t make the leap you have.
         Without a unity in peoples, your country WILL get overrun by muslims and various other idiotic policies that happen when humans ignore natural law.

         1. arent muslims religious ???

         2. functional, prosperous religions. (like Christianity)

         3. hahaha that is not my or my country mens experience of Christianity im afraid nor many peoples,plenty of christian militias in africa,crazy evangelistics in america who support israel because of the bible and what about anders brievik in norway ?? i have no problem with religion and it has a place and i am usually attracted to somewhat religious women as they have good values and are trustworthy but it should not be married to the state

         4. This marriage between State and Religion seems to work in Russia and has worked very well in Europe for centuries.
            It depends of which religion, really.

         5. i dont know enough about russia to say and it certainly hasnt in my country and it was christian,of course im sure it wasnt eh very same everywhere andi dont have aversion ye have to islam,i think it works well in certain countries and cultures,its ridiculous to think one religion would fit the whole world just like its ridiculous to think one political system can fit such a diverse world,im not enamored on a religion taking such precedence in a country,definitely having a role but it should have zero say in how its run in my opinion

      2. i wouldnt force it if you dont believe it. the only thing thats truly important is the search for your own Truth.

         1. The search for truth. Not your own truth. This “your own truth” thing seems itself a dangerous lie. You should search for truth on your own and you can never force someone to agree with you just because, but that doesn’t mean this world doesn’t have one universal truth.
            Even scientists would tell you it’s not likely that each person has their own truth that is fundamentally different from any other person as to the nature of their being and the universe. This “all religions are correct,” thing is the same basic lie. Maybe we’re all really lucky and each religion is itself a way to eternal life, but that doesn’t mean all are correct.
            Islam and Christianity and Judaism for instance are all three very different from each other in their views of Jesus Christ and by definition can’t all be correct. Just ask the question, “Who is Jesus according to (place name of religion here)? All three religions give fundamentally different answers, and so does science and atheism.

         2. If each man has his own “truth,” then truth is a meaningless term. This is a substantial element of our modern crisis.

      3. Thanks god you do understand that Religion IT IS THE SPINAL CORD of values in a society.
         Even if god do not exist we will ALWAYS need religion .

      4. Well said.
         I pray that you one day come to faith in Jesus Christ, but until that day I would happily embrace a virtuous and noble man who does not believe over a thousand vice-ridden, ignoble men who claim His name.

      5. Might I suggest a book by Edward Feser titled The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism. Deep reading, profound insight. I dont blame atheist for being atheist per say based on what has happened with RC Christianity over the past 50-75 years.

         1. Good point at the end, there; this is why I take the attitude I take. Many Catholics think I shouldn’t write here. But I see a bunch of men who have had the deck stacked against them, and really aren’t entirely to blame for having atheist prejudices and assumptions. I see that they want to improve themselves – and an atheist who wants to better himself is far closer to the Truth and to salvation, than a “catholic” who just doesn’t give a crap.
            I’ve been thinking about buying that book, as well; good to hear it recommended again.

6. The Catholic religion is the largest cult, in the purest definition of the word cult, that has ever existed. There is nothing Christian about Catholicism. True Catholics will even take issue with being called Christian. Educate yourself:
   [audio src="http://www.kingdompromises.org/kingdompromises_audio/192.mp3" /]

   1. Heretic and ignorant. I guess it’s not a coincidence…

   2. I’ve never heard a Catholic take issue to being called Christians. As the Fathers and Doctors of the Church teach us, only a Catholic really is a Christian.
      “Cult” is just a loan-word from Latin (“cultus”), which means “an established rite or custom of religious worship.” So, sure.
      I used to be a Protestant. Educating myself, led me to learn three ancient languages, read the works of dozens of ancient authors, and… become a Catholic! Of course, that assumes that “educating one’s self” involves something more than listening to your mp3 files…

      1. The Free Dictionary
         “a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be
         extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional
         manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.”
         Just because you claim to not be familiar with a Catholic taking issue to being called a Christian is neither here nor there. We’re speaking English and I’ve provided a definition of the word “cult”. Someone with your mental prowess would no doubt be familiar how to find this definition, if he were so inclined. It does not surprise me that you were not so inclined, because the truth does not support your beliefs and confronting the truth is not easy for most people, especially non-Christians who embrace the non-Biblical Catholic Cult and it’s heresies.
         If true, kudos to you for learning three languages. Trying to build cred for your position by attempting to impress upon the reader that you’re some kind of high level, learned intellectual (so therefore you must have arrived at the correct conclusion) is irrelevant and plain for anyone with eyes to see. If anything, “knowledge puffs up”. The world is full of educated idiots and the gospel is very easy to understand.
         I don’t expect you to repent of your heresy or entertain the truth that the Catholic religion is the largest cult ever to exist. Cult members are, by nature, almost impossible to reach with logic, reason, and truth. My post is for anyone reading who is not familiar with Christianity that may be hoodwinked into believing Catholics are Christian by reading your posts. No formal education or special understanding is needed to discover the truth of this matter, only honest research. Keep your “Fathers”; there’s only One Father. The idea that the Pope is Christian, or even a good person, is laughable even to secularists ignorant of the topic. “True Christian”, indeed. The “Doctors of the Church” must be the perverts who’ve reliably “played doctor” on little boys from time immemorial:
         “Alexander VI
         was Pope from 1492 to 1503. He is the most controversial of the secular
         popes of the Renaissance, and his surname (Italianized as Borgia)
         became a byword for the debased standards of the papacy of that era.
         Originally Cardinal Borgia from Spain, Pope Alexander’s claims to fame
         were taking over much of Italy by force with the help of his son Cesare
         (yes, his son), a racy relationship with his daughter Lucrezia (some say
         her son was his), and his affinity for throwing large parties,
         bordering on orgies, that usually culminated with little naked boys
         jumping out of large cakes.”
         If MP3s aren’t your thing, here a link. It’s a (debatable) list of the 10 worst popes of all time:
         http://www.oddee.com/item_96537.aspx

         1. Yes, my words about the term “cult” were just a rhetorical way of disagreeing. I was not feigning ignorance of the possible definitions of the world “cult” in Modern English; I thought the rhetorical nature of the reply would be obvious, and I apologize if it was not.
            The problem, is that the judgments involved in your given definition, are highly subjective, especially in our days. In our days, even the lightest forms of necessary, natural authority are considered extremist, weird, false, and excessively authoritarian. But the dress and cultural hierarchy associated with Catholic culture and religious practices, are simply the natural manifestations of pre-Modern culture. Sure, my monastic tunic and scapular seem like “weird dress” to you. But in fact, the tunic is the oldest and most common form of garment known to the world. I’m simply wearing what everybody used to wear, and what many cultures still wear.
            As times changed in the West, the force of custom left our clothing as it always had been. The vestments of the Mass are retained deliberately, both to beautify the ceremonies and to remind us of the Apostolic age, when dalmatics, chasubles, tunics, etc., were the garments of the first Christians and of the Apostles themselves when they offered the Eucharistic rites.
            And, even then, we obviously don’t impose this dress upon everyone; it is a way of indicating function and rank within the Church; even militaries, police forces, firefighters, etc., have peculiar dress. It is a very common thing in many societies, for persons in various religious, military, cultural, etc., roles, to show this in their garb.
            The mention of my education was not meant to toot my horn about education per se, but to focus on the implication of your website, that if people “educated themselves,” they would adopt your revisionist view of Christianity and Church history. I familiarized myself with the ancient world and Christian antiquity, which I consider to be a more germane and substantive type of education than would be had by absorbing the information found in the audio files you presented. I was merely saying that a man who really learns about the ancient world and Christian antiquity, is quite likely to find himself agreeing that the early Christians were Catholics, or something like it, and were very unlike any modern sect such as your own. I don’t say this in a desire to give offense.
            Finally, I’m not sure what the fact of bad popes is supposed to imply. Alexander VI’s personal immorality has nothing to do with the substantive content of our holy religion, other than incurring its condemnation.

7. “History also shows us that women will follow men on these points; when man have done their duty and fostered these virtues in society, women may often seem to surpass us in their daily practice; but when men fail, we find that the women who looked like our betters in times of civic virtue, are far more depraved than us in times of decadence.” –> spot on observation.
   “And that is when I realized that their real, sole, consistent principle, is contra-natural discrimination—i.e., in every place where reason and nature would draw definite distinctions and make a just discrimination in one direction or another, they are in favor of blurring matters and making an exactly contrary discrimination. This is a plainly satanic activity” –> revelation inspired by the HS.
   Appreciate your articles and the heart you write with Aurelius.
   Cheers.

8. A very interesting article, which chimes with a number of thoughts I’ve had myself. I would call myself a Christian but am not particularly religious and find it difficult to believe in the existence of Satan in a literal sense, however, recently I have also come to see the Left as essentially a “Satanic” force, and this has led me to reconsider whether there may be deeper truth to the scripture than I at first understood.
   The reason I would describe the Left as “Satanic” rather than merely “evil” is because the defining feature of Satan – rather than simply being malicious – is that he subverts the good for his own purposes, just as the Left does today. The dominance of the Left is a doubly devastating because not only does the Left engage in evil but actually dedicates itself to corrupting the good and redefining it so that evil becomes the new good. When this takes place on a society-wide scale it results in mass confusion, demoralization and decadence as even good people who want to live righteously cannot find their moral bearings. My father, a priest (not a Catholic, obviously), once told me that it is traditionally believed the only sin that cannot be forgiven is the sin against the Holy Spirit – which he tells me would be to claim that what is evil is good and what is good is evil. That is the very essence of the Left.
   I’ve also had similar thoughts regarding what defines the Left. As you have said, the Left has few consistent principles, however the one unifying factor is that the Left is against Nature in all its forms. This can be seen clearly in its hatred of the fact of biologically-determined differences, but also in its very aesthetics. For example, while classical architecture and art revels in the beauty of patterns and symmetry, leftist and modernist art celebrates the dissonant, jarring and ugly. This tendency also manifests itself at the theoretical level in a hatred of any kind of objective criteria or hierarchy.

   1. I believe in a literal Satan. Satan does exist. I was married to her for twelve years.

      1. Well played sir, well played.

   2. “The reason I would describe the Left as “Satanic” rather than merely
      “evil” is because the defining feature of Satan – rather than simply
      being malicious – is that he subverts the good for his own purposes,”
      I’ve been making this observation too. I think I got it from reading René Guénon.
      If I remember well, Satan originally means “the one who subverts”.
      I think Mel Gibson’s portrayal of Satan mocking the Holy Virgin Mary illustrates perfectly its subversive nature and may serve as an allegory of the leftist ideology too :
      

      1. Literally, the Hebrew word for serpent, “nachash”, also means “smooth”. The devil is a smooth talker. A deceiver, a seducer.

9. Being pious is one way to win our culture back from the clutches of the oppressors who continuously lead women and men into depravity with their brainwashing campaigns in our schools and media.
   The first step is to own the fact that because you are a man, you will naturally have responsibilities and be duty-bound towards others.

10. What we are missing in today’s society is something the Romans called “pietas”. There’s no exact English translation, but it combines aspects of duty, loyalty, and religious/familial piety. It was a tremendously important concept in the early Roman Republic and inherently part of the Western tradition until the 20th century and dissolution of the family. The lack of pietas is reflected in the social corruption seen today.

    1. What Roman thinkers frequently used the term?

       1. I think “pietas” is usually translated directly (though imperfectly) as piety. In the quote from Cicero above, the original Latin word he uses is “pietas.”

          1. I’ve read Cicero Loeb Edition. I should put in more time looking at the Latin.

          2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietas

    2. Yes, “piety” is just the English translation of pietas. This is precisely what my article was saying.

11. “And that is when I realized that their real, sole, consistent principle, is contra-natural discrimination—i.e., in every place where reason and nature would draw definite distinctions and make a just discrimination in one direction or another, they are in favor of blurring matters and making an exactly contrary discrimination. This is a plainly satanic activity, and I find it to be one of the greatest vindicators of the truthfulness of the faith which it opposes.”
    I recently had two conversations. The first was with a protestant pastor who did not have the first clue about the evils that feminism had done to our society. The second was with an FSSP Catholic priest who blew me away with his knowledge of history, philosophy, and the mechanisms of the degredation of our civilization.
    As a lifelong agnostic about to start a family, I realize that, given my cynical worldview and hatred of our progressive society, I could use a little help in instilling traditional values in my future children. While I never would have considered Catholicism even two years ago, I am finding that the more traditional aspects of the Catholic faith are in direct opposition to my/our enemies.
    The “enemy of my enemy is my friend” was my starting point. My search for truth through reading Thomas Aquinas and you, Aurelius Moner, is making me more and more comfortable with the search for Truth. I look forward to your future writings on religion and philosophy.

    1. I encourage you to continue on your journey brother. I was a hardened atheist once, it was the beauty of the Latin Mass that brought about my conversion.

       1. Hallelujah!

    2. FSSP priests are based as fuck.

    3. I myself am increasingly becoming more and more drawn to Catholicism. I visited a RC church for mass on Sunday.

       1. Find a Traditional Church near you, and go tomorrow and next Sunday, which are Palm Sunday and Easter Sunday. Hopefully they’ll do things right, and you’ll get to see two of the holiest days of the year done as they have been done for about five centuries, now.

          1. My shifts dictate when I can go, unfortunately due to this any church attendance is sporadic. I’m contemplating just contacting the local church for some form of discussion and to touch base. How should I proceed, what are good things to ask/be clear about?

          2. First, do you mind sharing your general location (i.e., “Central Arizona”)?
             As to what to ask about, I’m assuming that you’re talking about scoping the parish out for its amenability to a traditionalist and masculine attitude. In that case, I’d be very frank with the priest. Tell him that, with true respect (because he may already be on the same page, you have no idea), you are drawn to the actual Catholic Faith precisely because it puts man in touch with Truth and the Transcendent, and it condemns modern evils and inane concepts like human “rights” abstracted from objective morality. You could care less about Ecumenism and “dialogue;” you are looking for a Church where there will be no hippie nonsense, and where the Sacraments are celebrated with reverence. You want to find a moral woman and to start a family; you aren’t looking for a Church that will undermine, subtly or otherwise, your role as head of the household. You are looking forward to tithing, volunteering, serving at altar, etc., as you are able, if his Church is like that.
             That should get any priest’s attention, immediately. I imagine you’ll be able to tell from the response, whether you should hit the road or find a pew.

          3. I’m in England, UK.
             I’ve taken notes from your response. I’ll pray and think on what I truly want from the church then contact them.
             I come from a very Protestant background. The church of my youth claimed no denomination, but was part of the Evangelical Alliance. Even after asking questions and researching I still don’t get the Catholic Eucharist, or the Pope, yet I’m still drawn to Catholicism. The mass was great to attend, but I didn’t have a clue what was going on. As such, I’m toying with taking a slower route, of finding an Anglican and then a High Anglican church to ease myself into the traditionalism of Christianity.
             There’s so much fractious history and divisions between Christians and churches I’m at a bit of a loss.

          4. I certainly understand. I was raised atheist, and then was in a non-denominational, Evangelical Church myself. Most of my research was done in primary sources (reading the Fathers and historical authors directly), but not everyone has the ability or inclination to do that.
             I’ve heard that Stephen K Ray’s book, Upon This Rock, does a great job of showing the character and development of the Papacy from the time of the Bible through to the 400s, during the pontificate of St. Leo the Great, showing that the whole doctrine of the papacy was already recognized and in place in the early Church.
             Mike Aquilina’s book, “The Mass of the Early Christians,” was one of the early books I read. I recall it being helpful on understanding the basics of the Eucharist, what the first Christians believed about it, how the shape of the Mass developed, etc.
             Of course, the real thing would be to read broadly the early Fathers of the Church. But if one cannot read many of them, one should read “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith,” which summarizes the main points of Patristic Doctrine. Honestly, my conversion to Christian Tradition was largely the result of reading this work carefully and slowly, considering St. John’s train of thought closely. You can find it online, probably (that’s how I read it back in the day; I printed it off from the web). If you’d like a book (which I’d recommend, because this work is a keeper), you’d do well to go with this edition, probably:
             http://www.amazon.com/Writings-Knowledge–Philosophical-Chapters-Heresies/dp/1470149249/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1458673516&sr=1-4&keywords=exact+exposition+of+the+orthodox+faith
             Obviously, I started out in Orthodoxy before I moved to Catholicism. Because modern Catholicism is in such a bad state, it can be hard to find a good place to start, there. But if I could do it all over again, knowing what I know now, I would not try to “ease myself” into tradition by starting in a traditional, but ultimately false, church. Best to go straight to the source. As to that, here are some sites listing faithful chapels in England, which you could try:
             From the SSPX, which is usually solid, still (though problems are beginning to creep in):
             http://sspx.co.uk/page_chapels.htm
             From the SSPX “resistance” movement, which is a mixed bag – some solid priests, and some you may prefer to avoid:
             http://www.therecusant.com/resistance-mass-centres
             From the FSSP in England; they mean well and will probably teach you the Faith more or less correctly, but very few of their priests are validly ordained (because the bishops who ordain for them were consecrated with the new, invalid rite).
             http://fssp.co.uk/england/
             I’ll point out, I obviously don’t know any of these men in England, so I can’t recommend you go to them or avoid them; I just supply this list so you’ll see what all your options are.
             Feel free to email me with specific questions you have about the Eucharist, papacy, or whatever.

          5. Almost forgot. Eastern Catholics are often a good option. Here are some of them in England.
             http://orientale-lumen.blogspot.com/p/uk-eastern-catholics.html

          6. Thankyou. I’ll get reading and researching.

          7. Hey, Aurelius, what would you answer to those who argue that Christian celebrations are just a copy of the Pagan ones ? (Christmas, Easter… etc.)

       2. Also read up on Ann Barnhardt and Hilary White sites so you better understand whats going on inside the RC church. Just any RC church will not do at all. If it aint TLM, it likely is not worth going too.
          And finally, read Hilaire Belloc’s How The Reformation Happened. Very profound (all his books are), very clear on how we started down the path we find ourselves on today.

    4. I sympathize. One of the things that drew my admiration to Catholicism, was the fact that Traditional Catholics regularly proved themselves to me to be the sanest people left, with a penetrating understanding of human nature, civilization, history and modern evils. And, when I started to learn the history of the past few centuries, I realized that all the revolutionaries – Protestants, Humanist Revolutionaries, Socialists, Communists, Marxists, Social Marxists, etc. – all of them have regarded the Church as Enemy Number One. It seemed to me that the battle between good and evil was marshalled entirely around that Church, far beyond my own Church at the time (the Orthodox), which, while remaining traditional in its customs, had really become a stagnant and inactive backwater, never evangelizing and undermining even her own theological patrimony in a millennium of anti-Latin resentment.
       After a couple years of study, I became convinced the Catholic Faith was the True Faith. But one must understand that, at this late date, the Revolution has infiltrated her structures. That’s why you’ll find modernist bishops (like the one in the first picture of the article) handing out “communion” to immigrants at the border, pushing for greater inclusion of women in “ministry,” etc. The doctrine of the Church actually tells us that men such as them have been automatically severed from the Church and are no longer members, even if they appear to continue to hold positions of power. But amongst the small band of Traditionalists, who keep the Faith and remain members of the Church, one finds holiness, perspicacity and sanity that are remarkably rare anywhere else.
       Several supernatural events over the past two centuries warned the Church that this bitter moment was arriving – this bitter confrontation and confusion between an impostor church and the True. These events also promised that, against all odds, in the end, the small remnant of faithful would find themselves vindicated beyond all expectation. Even if I die before it happens, though, I’d rather die while attempting to be a sane and decent man, faithful to the traditions of our ancestors and the truth of their Faith.

       1. Excellent. I’d like to see this expanded into an article.

12. I have to fess up…. I thought your words were real…oh my good grief.I am getting heartily sick of you folk IMAGINING all these vile things are actually happening.It`s all in your mind.My spies tell me that that feminism is a fine and good thing.It`s only the evil white male patriarchy that is the problem.Come over to the light and the goodness….feminism knows nothing of being repugnant scum….they give me their solemn word.

    1. Trolololololololololololololol. You had me there for a sentence or two you devious scum

       1. I count devious and scum as amongs`t my finest traits.I learned my skills from the victimhood.The sisterhood is my guiding light…..keep in mind….I`m easily led….

       2. What gave me away?

          1. Everything up until and following ‘spies’ was totally something a feminist would say.

          2. I`ll work on it.Being called a feminist is not something I wish to happen,not now or in the future.

13. In the vocabulary of the modern left, the closest equivalent to “piety” is “racism!”

    1. gaaah! thoughtcrime! THOUGHTCRIME!!!!

    2. Spot on!

14. Great insight. While you call it piety, to a Hebrew, your statement about blurring and crossing of boundaries is even more relevant. In the Hebrew language, the word “qadosh” is translated as “holiness” in your Bible. But, that word qadosh literally means, boundaries. To be separated, segregated, distinct, distinguished. Or, to have boundaries. All of creation was an act, not of creation ex nihilo, but of creating boundaries. Light from dark. Dry from wet. Heaven from earth. Etc. And the final act of holiness in creation, was separation of man from woman. A lot of the rules that don’t seem to make sense, make perfect sense when you understand they are about holiness. The Christian idea of “holiness” is so far from the Hebrew, it is useless. But your idea of piety fits it very well. Separation of mankind into nations, tribes, clans, families, and households, is also an aspect of holiness. This ties into economics. The prophet Isaiah said “woe unto those who build up house next to house, until they be all alone in the land”. This makes sense in light of Calhoun’s work. If only Calhoun had looked at it from a holiness perspective, I believe he would have found some interesting solutions to the Rat Utopia in the Torah. Specifically the parts that create a bond between a man and his “territory”, his “patrimony”, a piece of land that is his, to pass on to his descendants. Without such property rights, your right to have a woman disappears soon after, and then you are a communist in all but name.
    In Rat Utopia, if each rat had only been able to get food from a specific location, its “patrimony”, this would have gone a long way to offset the behavioral sink. The third chapter of Genesis says “man shall earn his bread by the sweat of his brow”. Men who don’t even lift, suffer. If the rats had to forage/work for their food, this would also have changed the outcome of Rat Utopia.
    In the Bible, God says “Be thou holy as I am holy”. But noone really knows what that means. Because they don’t know what holiness is. Starting with the book of Genesis and seeing the holiness pattern of all creation, helps to understand that. We do live in a sacred world.

    1. The means of production are also found in Torah. Not everyone can be a land owner. But after 7 years of being someone elses laborer, he has to provide you with means of production so you can set up on your own. It is written in the rules; slavery is allowed, but regulated. It completely does away with the welfare state, keeps boys home on the farm, and maximizes the total amount of sex/marriage and willing soldiery in a nation. When immigrants can’t own land, there is no immigration problem.
       You know, daughters used to be useful; a beautiful daughter could secure a good alliance. Or at the very least, bring a son-in-law into your household to boost your manpower.

    2. In my Bible, it is actually translated as “sacer” or “sanctitas,” which mean exactly the same thing – set apart, separated. The Catholic concept of holiness is precisely the same as the concept you describe; this is why doctrine is put forth in the form of dogmatic or doctrinal “definitions” (Latin definire, “set a border/boundary/limit”), and it is why consecrated items are always treated with reverence and can never be returned to worldly usage, and it is why the eight hours of prayer are set apart from each other as rulers of the day, and why a Church has several sacred boundaries, and why monasteries and convents also have sacred boundaries, spiritual authority is apportioned by specific jurisdictions, roles, and spheres of authority, etc., etc.
       The Catholic Church is the Israel of God, and is the fulfillment of everything that was true and holy from the Old Covenant. It is no surprise that their concept of holiness should be identical. But in fact, even the Classical Pagans had this sense of holiness (hence the Latin term for holy already signified this, as did the Greek term, “agios,” which means “separated from earthly things” – temple boundaries, divisions of sacred jurisdiction and authority, etc., are very important to their religious concepts as well). Even the English word “holy” and “hallow” come from Old English “halig,” a term that denoted the thing that was whole and complete in itself, unlike earthly things which are delimited and particular apart from it. It’s a universal concept, eminently plain to reason.
       Most Americans are more familiar with Protestantism, so that may be what you had in mind. Protestantism, as a Modernist movement, often suffers from the diminished sense of the supernatural that plagues all Modernism (and, from a lack of awareness of the terms of the original Biblical texts, and even an historical ignorance of the history of modern languages and their terms), and so it is true that their concept of holiness is often fairly plain-Jane: “living a moral and prayerful life, perhaps having some of the ‘fruits of the Spirit,’” or something of the like. But any religion coming from antiquity was still in touch with the fundamental, human idea of the holy thing as the separated, distinct thing.

       1. Catholicism may be the most effective of the Christian sects, but it was pozzed 1800 years ago in a holiness spiral. Excessive holiness is as harmful as unholiness. For the documentation on this, Rushdoony “Institutes of Biblical Law” is excellent. The Catholic church is milque-toast compared to Rushdoony Christianity.
          By making everything symbolic, Catholicism (to a lesser degree than Orthodoxy) nullifies the letter while claiming to honor the spirit. Even the acclaimed Aquinas said that prostitution should be legal. His logic was clever and witty, but it falls and breaks on the solid rock of the Word, who said “No daughter of Israel be a whore”, nor shall her father cause her to be one.
          By throwing away the literal meaning, Catholicism has opened itself up to millenia of needless turmoil.
          That is why I am a Hebrew. The Word is sufficient.

          1. Western governments don’t fear Catholics. They aren’t putting Catholics in jail. But they fear the raw power of the Word. That is why Western governments have been jailing Hebrews for practicing the same things that Jesus did when he walked the earth.

          2. They feared Catholics more than anything, more than any sect, until they were able to neutralize her institutions in the 60s. She was absolutely their prime target and most formidable foe.
             As to what you said above, Aquinas’ position was that prostitutes and their clients are sinners who need to be converted, and that neither the Church nor the State should endorse them. Nevertheless, vice and failings are a part of the human condition, especially in society, and attempts to entirely extirpate vice usually result in even greater evils. It is better that young men keen on sinning go to the already loose women, than that they turn to the honest daughters of honest fathers in their eagerness to fornicate.
             At the same time, that undermines the assertion of an “holiness spiral” in Catholicism. Which was it? Her greatest theologian advocated toleration of certain evils rather than counselling a too ambitious extirpation of vice, or she was trapped in an holiness spiral? They can’t both be true! Indeed, in my opinion it was Protestantism that began the holiness spiral, especially by the dismissal of the entire concept of supererogatory works in the 39 Articles, essentially making all of the optional, Evangelical counsels into norms of Christian morality. This had two main effects: 1) the holiness spiral in which the Puritans, Quakers and their descendants spun themselves into being holier than Christianity itself, where they now live on to plague us as secular progressives; 2) the neglect of the Evangelical counsels altogether, which is now complete amongst Evangelicals, especially “prosperity” types.
             We see this as clear as day in our own times – the SJW push to make the perfect the enemy of the good, striving for the extirpation of all vice, is itself a worse evil than the evils they oppose (when legitimate). St. Thomas’ counsel on the matter is precisely the opposite of what someone trapped in a religious holiness-spiral would give. Our Lord also gave similar advice, when He said to let the tares and wheat grow together, lest pulling up the tares, we kill also some of the wheat. Nor do I recall Him counselling that the woman caught in adultery should be stoned, in accord with the Law of Moses. Obviously the laws governing carnal Israel are not the laws that govern the Israel of Spirit and Truth; this is made clear in the New Testament itself, by the first synod of the Church in Jerusalem, and by St. Peter’s mission to Cornelius.
             Finally, Catholics do not relegate everything to allegory or symbol. We teach that the Scriptures have a literal, anagogical, moral and allegorical sense. All four senses exist at all times; we never set aside a passage as being “only” allegorical, moral, literal, or anagogical. The letter can never be nullified, but is always true and inspired as it is. But no document stands unto itself; if the “Word” (meaning the mere texts of the Bible) were sufficient, there would be no disagreement about it. In point of fact the Word (meaning Christ) is hypostatically joined to the Church, and this – the Church – rather than a book, is that which He came to establish. He promised, not that the Bible would be sufficient, but rather, that the Church would never fail, which He called the “pillar and bulwark of the Truth,” and which He commanded the faithful to obey. The Church, hypostatically joined to the Word and speaking as His Body and voice upon Earth, is indeed sufficient to expound for us the Bible, which she wrote and compiled (after four centuries of managing her own affairs without an official canon or widely-available, full texts of the same) under the influence of the Holy Ghost. But it’s not my intention to dispute with you; I only speak a word of reply to the things you have said.

15. This is a plainly satanic activity, and I find it to be one of the greatest vindicators of the truthfulness of the faith which it opposes

    That’s what started to convince me back to Christianity, the fact that everyone seems to radically hate it now. It’s like they’re possessed or something.
    If they just wanted to be degenerate on their own, okay whatever. but the fact that they fanatically try and tear down everyone else, worldwide, is evidence of ubiquitous evil.

    1. Yes, this played a large role in my own conversion. Christ was hated by all with particular insanity, and He predicted that His Body, His followers after Him, would be hated in the same way.
       The more I learned about history, the more I saw that the Catholic Church was solidly in this position – every phase of the leftist revolution has explicitly regarded the Church as the enemy that had to be eliminated before anything else could succeed. They have not been embarrassed to tell any lie, nor to spin any tale of propaganda no matter how extravagant; when I compared their lies about the Crusades, Galileo, the Inquisition, etc., to what actually happened, I was stunned that they had lied so boldly.
       When they finally decided in the late 19th century to work at wrecking it from the inside, rather than fight the losing battle head-on, they met with the success they wanted. Once they neutralized the institutions of the Church by coopting them in the 60s, eliminating all the Church’s rites, relegating her doctrine to “the past,” etc., they were finally able to move freely in the world. Divine Providence allows this, for now; it is the Passion of the Church. I pity the Church’s enemies when the time of her trial has come to an end, however.

       1. It started with Luther.

       2. Divine Providence has allowed a Peronist Pope. I don’t follow you into sedevacantism but I struggle with this situation.

          1. I understand and sympathize. I struggled mightily with it, because I came from Orthodoxy, and I felt like it was just a bit too convenient to suddenly be a Sedevacantist Catholic. Maybe I still wasn’t over my aversion to the papacy?
             Except, it was the papacy that converted me, and I revere it very, very highly. In the end, it boiled down to two very clear truths, of which most modern Catholics are unaware. First, it is the settled teaching of the Church that ALL public heretics, even material heretics, are ipso facto severed from the Church. Pope Leo XIII cites this in his encyclical letter Satis Cognitum as being the perennial and certain teaching of the Church and all the Fathers. Pius XII reiterates it in his authoritative encyclical Mystici Corporis. The same pope reminds us that we must believe the teaching of encyclicals, because the popes never express their merely private opinions there, but always reiterate the settled teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium. If they take a position in an encyclical on a point known to be contested prior thereto, their encyclical must be taken as a serious judgment upon that matter. St. Robert Bellarmine and Vatican I also reiterate this teaching, reaffirming that it is doubly true in the case of popes, since they cannot be deposed by any other authority in the Church; they can only be deposed automatically for public heresy.
             Second, it is the settled teaching that the Universal, Ordinary Magisterium of the Church is infallible. This Magisterium is found in the consonant teaching of local bishops and councils, approved seminaries, curial documents, works published with the imprimatur, the Code of Canon Law, the Liturgy, etc. When these things agree in such a way that the faithful would naturally take their agreement to be the teaching of the Church, we have the Infallible Magisterium. Furthermore, while the most solemn documents of the Church’s Faith and Life, the Liturgy and Code of Canon Law, could contain short-lived and minor errors, it would be impossible for them to contain things flatly contrary to the Faith and Divine Law. Yet the Liturgy as approved since Paul VI, especially in translation, and the Canon Law since JPII, manifestly contained elements that were not merely erroneous, but impious and contrary to Faith and Divine Law. And certainly the consonant teaching of the bishops since VII on many topics, religious liberty and ecumenism chief among them, has been heretical.
             So, I came to realize that our Catholic Faith requires us to believe these two things – the Church cannot lead us astray in her general teaching, and all public heretics (even material ones) are out of the Church without the need for any official trial or sentence. The Faith is always more important than obedience to men who appear to hold positions of authority; and indeed, in history we see that the Church has canonized persons who disobeyed even the Supreme Pontiffs in situations where the Faith was opposed to the authorities’ errors and impiety (such as St. Athanasius’ disobedience of pope Liberius, even to the point of ordaining clergy in other dioceses in order to provide the people with bishops and priests that were not in communion with Liberius and the Arians). It seems like it must be more complicated than that, but it really isn’t.

          2. If the Holy Father doesn’t formally decree something in matters to do with faith and morals that is in contradiction to the Church’s teachings, do we not grant him the same extensions to any other Catholic who might make a careless heterodox statement here and there or hold the odd erroneous opinion about living a Christian life or what not? If everyone in the Church had to hold water-tight beliefs to do with the Sacraments, Christ, the Blessed Virgin etc. in order to be in valid communion, there’d be not many left, surely? To what extent does ignorance let one off the hook, even if that rather ignorant person is indeed the Holy Father?

          3. There is a substantial truth to what you say. A Catholic who intends to adhere to the Magisterium, if he is in error simply as to the facts of what the Magisterium teaches, is not an heretic and remains a member of the Church. “Sin is in the will,” is a famous maxim – i.e., our intent, given what we know, is the thing that is subject to moral evaluations. A man in honest error, may still have good intentions. Yes, we accord such men the benefit of the doubt.
             Some people mistakenly believe that this is what Material Heresy is – i.e., an heretical opinion held mistakenly. But in fact, the theologians clarify that the sin of heresy is not merely wrong opinion, but disregard of the teaching of the Church. Material heresy is thus found amongst such persons as Protestants in invincible ignorance of the Church. For example, a Protestant who grew up in the Ozarks and either never heard of the Church, or only heard strange tales about a man called the pope who is the Antichrist, and the leader of the Whore of Babylon, would merely be a material heretic for having no sense of his obligation to adhere to the Magisterium. Contrarily, a Catholic who knows what the Church authoritatively teaches, yet disregards it deliberately, is a formal heretic.
             Now, two hard cases: first, take a Southern Baptist who knows about the Church and her claims to teaching authority, and yet does not study the matter to make an informed decision about whether he should obey or not. Perhaps it would be hard to attribute formal heresy directly to the person, but certainly we can say that he is at least guilty of culpable ignorance, and of neglecting a matter of supreme importance to his salvation. This in itself carries an implicit neglect of what teaching authority there may be, and I reckon in most cases this would incur the guilt of formal heresy.
             Second, take the modern anti-popes. There are three possibilities with them: 1) they honestly don’t know that they’re professing heresy, and they intend to adhere to the Magisterium, but simply keep making mistakes (in which case they would be popes, albeit the worst popes ever to have lived); 2) they do not intend to adhere to the Magisterium, but they do this without any malice, because they are held captive by some strange, new ideology; 3) they know exactly what they’re doing, and are destroyers of the Faith.
             Men like John Paul II studied under Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange; during the time he was studying there, a modernist pamphlet was circulated teaching many of the errors that have been popularized since VII, and which JPII often espoused or committed, himself. Pope Pius XII put out an encyclical explicitly condemning the items that had been circulating in that pamphlet, being inspired to do so by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange’s own public refutation of those errors at the Angelicum during JPII’s time of study with him. I don’t think one can argue with any probability, therefore, that JPII is unaware of the solemn condemnation of his Modernism. In any other age, his actions – submitting to being “blessed” by topless pagan witches, inviting pagans to worship idols on the altars of one of the greatest shrines in Christendom (Assisi), etc. – would have been considered outrageous acts of heresy and apostasy, and he would have been lucky not to be killed on the spot by a mob of faithful Catholics. It is only because we live in the age of “nice,” that our consciences have been softened to the point where a pope can desacrate hallowed, Christian altars with pagan idols, and not be disemboweled for it. There has probably never been a greater act of blasphemy in ALL of Church history. Even Alexander VI’s orgies, did not sink to such a pitch of blasphemous desecration.
             Similarly, I think it’s hard to argue that a man like Francis can be excused for saying “I don’t believe in a Catholic God.” This is the statement of an apostate and a syncretist. His encyclical letters teach that the Jews are being saved in their own covenant and do not need to convert; his actions in all his prior life confirm that he is a Syncretist in the Masonic vein, par excellence. Syncretism is by definition apostasy from the Faith.
             In my opinion, they are both formal heretics. I do not think one can make the argument that they are *trying* to be faithful to the Magisterium, because it is plain enough that new rites, new doctrines, abstract “rights” (like “religious liberty,” to say nothing of their additional Syncretism), etc., are all prohibited, and even a moderately competent Catholic teenager can discover these truths for himself in an hour on the internet or in a seminary library. I think it is an insult to our intelligence, to imply that educated clerics like JPII and Francis (and Paul VI, etc.) are “mistaken” about these simple doctrines.
             But, for the sake of extending as much good will as one can, I will admit that it is possible that the confusion of Vatican II, and the nature of Modernism itself, has confused otherwise well-meaning men into believing that the Magisterium is flexible or that modern man no longer has the same duty of “submission,” because that is all very outdated and Medieval and does not accord with the needs of modern man. That’s all hogwash, but I can see how a damnable, hippie cleric might believe it. In which case, if men like JPII and Francis are of that type, they have found a new and interesting way of being a material heretic while also identifying as a Catholic – something former theologians thought impossible, because they didn’t see how a self-identified Catholic could be ignorant of his obligation to adhere to the Magisterium. Yet, these Vatican II types may very well have invented a way to do it. They do not merely have wrong opinions, they specifically disregard the need to adhere to the Magisterium; but they do this without malicious intent, due to the revolutionary and syncretizing principles of Modernism itself. In which case, I’m glad that they’re not malicious, but I reiterate that the Church teaches that all heretics, even material ones, are out of the Church.
             To sum up: men who simply make an honest mistake, but give every appearance of intending to adhere to the Magisterium, remain Catholics despite their mistakes; men who make no effort to adhere to the Magisterium because they don’t understand the obligation to do so, are material heretics; men who deliberately refuse adherence to the Magisterium (or are culpably negligent of their obligation), are formal heretics. I don’t think one can make a probable argument that our modern anti-popes are making a serious effort to adhere to the Magisterium; their errors go beyond the level of an honest mistake here and there, especially given their backgrounds and education, which make their mistakes far more inexcusable. Therefore, whether one wants to believe that they are ignoring the Magisterium “in good will” (honestly believing this is no longer obliging in the same way as it once was), or whether one concludes that they are deliberately undermining the Faith, they must be heretics, whether materially or formally. They are out of the Church in either case. I don’t think one can conclude otherwise, if he is faithful to Catholic doctrine on the nature of membership in the Church.

       3. The soixante-retards stike again.

          1. Yes, my folks get mad, because I’ve made it very clear that I regard the Boomers as the worst generation that has ever lived.
             They get mad, because they know that I’m familiar with just about every important generation in Western history from the 7th century BC on, and I still state flatly and with conviction: your generation is so far and away the worst, that it is an essentially uncontested win. There were no close seconds.

          2. Too right mate, seems everything really did go to shit with the boomers in charge. No fault divorce, Open borders to the Third world, old age pension and medicare, and so many other things that has lead to the shit situation we find ourselves in.
             I still find it hard to fathom how a generation could so utterly sell out their childrens future and condemn them to debt slavery all so could they could live a life of luxury in retirement one day. As if we were all meant to ever really stop working.

    2. And the fact that they support Islam, even though at face value, Islam seems it should be more dangerous to feminists and the status quo.

    3. There will come a time, in the near future, when the few remaining good
       irreligious people will decide they’ve had enough and will once again return
       to the truth, they haven’t got much choice. Once you get to the point
       where you cannot raise children in a safe environment, then we will see a
       revival of sorts, but it will be contrasted with a very hostile enemy
       who won’t go down without a fight.

16. Thankyou for sharing your wisdom with us

17. I am in absolute agreement with your article. My only question lies in us being virtuous , does this mean at all times to everyone ? I often, from my own personal experience , see this backfiring . In Nordic paganism there is a maxim that says something to the effect of “repay true friendships with gifts and adoration but treachery and deceit should be repayed in kind ” I would not go out of my way to save someone’s life who wouldn’t return the favor , hell I wouldn’t even pick up the tab .

    1. Well, one should strive always to be virtuous, in every private and public act. In fact, even the Classical Pagan authors admitted that virtue was an integral whole, and thus, one had not yet truly become virtuous until one had all the virtues and practiced them consistently.
       But virtue itself teaches us to make wise and proper discriminations. Sometimes there is a special perfection in showing forbearance or even kindness to enemies, but in some situations, especially if one is in a position of authority, or is charged with the defense of a nation or family, then, yes: one often has to introduce an enemy to grisly death. Virtue itself teaches us when to do what, and how to do it (chiefly, the virtue of wisdom/prudence).

       1. Well said , thank you .

18. Tully IS Cicero. But quality regardless. You would like Confucius.

    1. LMAO. Yes, you’re right. I was writing this late at night, and Aquinas cites him as Tully, with the footnote saying “De Invent. Rhet. ii.” Knowing that sometimes Aquinas cited authors that he thought were classical (but which turn out to be pseudepigraphal ), I did a Google search for Latin authors on piety, and get a link for Cicero: De Inventione at the Latin Library.
       “Huh,” I thought, “funny that they have such similar titles.” It’s now plain that Aquinas was just giving an abbreviated form of the full phrase I found in Cicero.
       My Latin is mostly from late authors. I’m embarrassed to say I’ve only read one thing by Cicero (De Amicitia); otherwise, Virgil, Ovid and Seneca are the extent of my Classical Latin. Hence, embarrassing late-night mistakes such as this…

       1. It happens. I imagine the hermit life can be a tad tiring.

19. The article brings up but does explain or reconcile the current attitudes of the Catholic Church, in particular the Pope. Francis appears to be a product of South American Bolivarian politics, embracing the latest degenerate, thoughtless, and yes, impious leftist and SJW ideology.
    The biggest problem with the Catholics today is their excessive flexibility, and attempts to adjust to modern social norms, all for the sake of maintaining high membership (a.k.a. “inclusivity”). You will NEVER see the Eastern Orthodox Church do that. They are rock solid, and may be the last vestiges of Peter’s original Church.

    1. Indeed-post Vatican II the Roman Catholic Church has gone down the proverbial toilet and become this bastard hodgepodge of well-intentioned idiocy; just as well I’m of Greek Orthodox bearing and it and its’ brother Orthodox churches are rock solid in their traditionalism and masculinity such that I can openly mock Catholics and the like for being pathetic weaklings that embrace sickness and degeneracy.

       1. I left my Greek Orthodox monastery because homosexual activities were occurring there.
          Five years after I left, the “abbot” was arrested for soliciting sex from underage boys.
          The Antiochian Orthodox parish in my hometown communes lesbians (one in drag) every Sunday, communes most people without ever hearing a confession from them, allows women to run all of its auxiliary “ministries,” etc., etc. Pro-homosexual and liberal rhetoric is often heard in Greek and Antiochian circles. There are a few pockets, mostly Russian Orthodox, where a traditional mindset of sorts prevails.
          The situation is the same in the Catholic Church; most of the folk claiming to be “catholics” have actually fallen away from the Church and invented a bunch of new rites and doctrines for themselves. There are but a few hardy souls remaining, in isolated pockets, in the FSSP, SSPX, SSPV, etc., and nowadays one has to be careful even about some problems in the FSSP and SSPX (not so much moral, as sacramental). These are evil times. But I’ve found a far more solidly masculine environment in Traditional Catholicism than I did in Orthodoxy, where the spirit of “nice” was strong.

          1. Quite the confronting situation and one I am appalled by; I think it’s more a manifestation of the evil inherent in these people than organisational or denominational failings. Suffice to say it is sickening but there’s a special circle of hell reserved for these sodomites.

          2. When the local Russian Orthodox bishop went on and on about how evil war and violence were, I knew he was pozzed. War is a necessary part of the human condition, to defend your family and property.

          3. Sir, I do not understand. Can you explain for me FSSP, SSPX and SSPV?

          4. These are different priestly societies, in varying degrees of union with Rome. The FSSP (Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Petri – Priestly Brotherhood of Saint Peter) is with Rome, and is generally very solid on the dogmas of the Faith, but they have ignored some of the serious issues of sacramental theology, which indicate they may not be validly ordained priests.
             The SSPX recognizes the recent popes of Rome as “valid,” but “problematic” popes – i.e., popes who are so misguided on issues of faith that one is required to almost routinely ignore and disobey their liturgical and disciplinary directives, and often to criticize their theological statements. They are beginning to cave on the same important issues as the FSSP, but they are still generally solid.
             The SSPV is a group that, in my mind, adopts the more logical position that a pope who routinely speaks and acts in non-Catholic ways, ought rightly to be regarded as a non-Catholic; by the laws of the Church, all heretics and apostates are automatically excommunicated (especially popes, since they only way they can incur excommunication is automatically). It is absurd to think that Catholics must own as their spiritual head and teacher a man who routinely betrays and destroys the Catholic Faith. Even the Borgia pope was merely immoral; he didn’t bother preaching heresy, he just wanted more hot naked chicks to be sent up to his room. Frankly, I’d give my best hat for a pope who would be content merely to bang sluts on his airplane, rather than one who espouses heresy to every reporter he comes across. All the bishops and priests of the SSPV are certainly valid, and from what I’ve seen, are very solid on the Faith.
             There are other groups, like CMRI, who mean well and generally know the Faith, but who may not have validly ordained priests. It’s all a mess, at present. About the only safe places are Eastern Rite Catholic Churches (if you can ascertain that the priest and his bishop were ordained in the Eastern Rite), the more hard-core elements of the SSPX (including those protesting their current relaxation of standards), and the SSPV. Some of the old school FSSP priests were ordained in the SSPX, but most of their priests are younger and were invalidly ordained.
             I know it seems like a lot of information, and very convoluted. When you move in Catholic circles, it’s all old hat, but it sounds obscurantist to an outsider!

          5. Absolutely; there are sinners everywhere, and in my experience the Church has both the best and the worst people. This is because the holy forces one to make a clearer choice than is made by those who do not encounter it – and so, we find that those in the Church will grow either more depraved or more holy than the general populace, depending upon the choice they make.
             In Dante’s Inferno we find the sodomites in their own circle of hell. Blasphemers also have their own circle. We also find Judas and traitors in the bottom circle with Satan. These priests are blaspheming-traitor-sodomites; the Liturgy often calls to mind the fact that Jesus indicated Judas’ betrayal even as he broke the bread of the Eucharist with Him, right after ordination, and then betrayed Him with a kiss. It calls on the Christian not to betray the Lord after having eaten the Bread of Salvation, and the priest not to betray the Lord after having been welcomed into the brotherhood of His apostolic ministry.
             Blessed Columba Marmion also reminds the priest of a particularly harrowing fact: ordination, like baptism, impresses an indelible character on the soul; even the damned will bear this mark upon themselves. In hell, the hatred of the damned and of the demons is set loose upon each other – but for those Christians, and especially those priests, who bear on themselves the marks of the Savior that the damned have rejected and now hate with especial fury, shall become eternally the playthings of the demons and the rest of the wretched crew of the accursed souls. The priest whose job was to give souls the Bread of Life shall, in that pit of despair, become the choicest delicacy of the whole swarm of malevolent spirits.
             God grant such men repentance, if that be possible.

          6. I think if they repent with humility and an open, honest heart their wickedness can be forgiven.
             As regards Judas-I always was intrigued insofar as Jesus’ betrayal and crucifixion was preordained so that his death and resurrection could overcome sin for the rest of humanity in which case was Judas truly evil or was he a tragic figure? Was he destined to be a traitor yet who brought about the chain of events that released people from the bonds of sin and death. Something to think about.

          7. Yes, I once heard a Russian Orthodox bishop up in Canada make a “statement” on a priest who had committed adultery with a married woman in his parish.
             His whole “statement” carefully avoided any implication that the man had chosen to do something wrong. He kept saying things like “when one has a fall” or “when a man is overtaken by such a lapse,” or “this tragic mistake that has befallen him.” Everything was in the passive voice; it really helped me to see that this kind of language was everywhere in the Russian Orthodox circles I ran in – sin was this thing that “happened to us,” which caused us to “have a fall.” It is a castrating, emasculating way of speaking. It warps the mind until a man is not even capable of developing virtues, because he is simply passive before all the forces that act upon him.
             No. That priest betrayed his vows and seduced a woman of his parish, wronged her husband gravely, and wrought havoc throughout the whole parish and diocese. If we can’t even admit that we have sinned, that we have chosen to do something wrong, how can we possibly repent? How does one repent of “a fall” that “overtook” us? The priest should blame himself and take responsibility, so that he might, somehow, take responsibility for repenting, as well.

          8. Given there is only one holy, Catholic and apostolic Church, for one to be assured of their own orthodoxy, they would necessarily have to be baptised in THE Catholic Church, no? To that church founded by Christ and with the successor of Peter as its head. Whether the current holy father is a bit whack or not, this would surely be the most prudent course for anyone wishing to be baptised into the faith handed on by the apostles?
             It’s just that there seems to be a number of readers here interested in the Christian faith – thanks be to God – and I would hate to see them dip their toe in with some bat-shit crazy home schoolers. Please know I say that with the utmost charity. I’m thoroughly enjoying your work here Aurelius. Particularly the comment threads. Keep it up!

          9. Well, of course, the Church teaches that any baptism done with proper form and intent is valid, even if administered by an atheist!
             But yes, people should be baptized in the Catholic Church, ideally. However, where does the Catholic Faith teach that the Church is? With Peter? Yes. And how do we know who Peter is? Is he any man on the Vatican Hill in a white cassock?
             Our Catholic Faith teaches us that manifest, public heretics – even material heretics – are automatically severed from membership in the Church. St. Robert Bellarmine points out that this is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, as does Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum; Pius XII also reaffirms it in Mystici Corporis, and the Relator of Vatican I reaffirmed this, agreeing with St. Robert Bellarmine that it is doubly true in case of the pope, since this is the only way a pope can be deposed (being as there is no authority in the Church to depose an orthodox pope). Whether the pope is an heretic or not, I suppose, could be debated; but my conscience tells me that we have moral certainty that Francis, at least, is one. So, I am bound not to recognize him; Canon Law and moral theology both affirm that if one has innocently erred in such a manner, he remains a member of the Church despite the fact that, if a man had erred in this opinion, he would seem to have left it. The most stunning historical example of this, is St. Athanasius, who disobeyed pope Liberius and ordained bishops and priests in other bishops’ dioceses during the Arian crisis. Liberius was the first pope not to be canonized, and St. Athanasius is now one of the greatest of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. So, we should not think that such a situation is unprecedented, or that those who defy abused or heretical authority in Rome are always being “bad.”
             Our Catholic Faith also teaches that the Roman Rite of Mass cannot be altered subsequent to St. Pius V’s Quo Primum and the Council of Trent’s declaration that no pastor whosoever of the Churches could change the old rites into new ones. Moreover, the new rites, especially in their translations, contained things that were harmful to the faith; the radical alteration of the offertory (and, in translation, the words of consecration) have produced what I believe is an invalid mass, or at least a Mass whose validity is subject to serious doubts – in which case, Catholic moral theology tells us that it is a mortal sin to abandon the certain path for a more dangerous one when it comes to Sacramental validity, even if there is a good degree of probability that both are safe. Further, Cardinal Ottaviani himself objected that the new rite of episcopal consecration seemed certainly to be invalid (as did other theologians); they were dismissed with the claim that it was a prayer from a Coptic Rite, a claim which we now know to be false. And again, even if its validity is uncertain, there is a real doubt, so the above-stated principle applies, again… and extends to all the men ordained in that new rite.
             For all these reasons, I think the whole Church, and especially the Latin Rite, is in a serious state of crisis visited upon us by divine providence. Apparitions and papal warnings for two centuries, have indicated that such a calamity may be coming; I believe it is now upon us in full force, and that people put themselves in grave spiritual danger by blindly following Francis (and other, modern popes), and certainly by using the new rites which are always illicit and, in some important cases, even invalid. I know many find this to be a controversial position, but after two years of study on all the relevant points, it is what my conscience tells me is true. I remain open to being convinced otherwise, since it would certainly make life easier. But in any case, this is why I suggest men go to traditional groups where they can find certainly valid priests who believe the Catholic Faith in its integrity. This often means the Eastern Catholics, SSPX or SSPV. Yes, I think the SSPX and SSPV are more certainly Catholic than is Francis himself and the whole curia; one only has to compare the statement of the SSPX after the Synod on the Family to the Synod on the Family’s own statement, to see immediately and clearly, who are the actual Catholics these days.
             I hope I have not scandalized you in stating all of this so flatly and with a minimum of explanation.

          10. No not at all. Appreciate the honesty. Yeah, that teaching on baptism always makes me stop and think. Gives weight to the power and reality of words and intentions when it comes to the sacraments. Priests that change such things so flippantly in the Rites of the Church beggars belief. Having said that, many of the new rites have me wanting to add and change prayers constantly given their lack of substance and seeming sacramentality.
              The notion of what it is to be Catholic and in communion etc. has certainly been challenged these past years. Francis has certainly cured me of any Ultramontanism to be sure. The Church’s visible sign of unity and apostolic succession crumbling under – or seemingly being seduced by – modern madness is awful to watch. But what do you do? If we simply up and go searching for another group to appease our sentiments, not matter how noble the intention, are we not as bad as the boof head who stops going to mass because he feels he gets more from Pastor Phil from Planet Life Church up the road? Perhaps this is genuinely where conscience enters into it. Who was it – Cardinal Newman? – when proposing a toast: “To the Pope…still, to conscience first, then to the Pope”

    2. The next article will go into that.
       I used to be an Orthodox monk; trust me, all the beauty of the Orthodox Church is in her customs, which have survived intact a bit longer, because Modernism’s ravages have been visited upon the East about four centuries after they were unleashed on the West. But when you go into the Orthodox churches that are in touch with Modernism, they are as bad as anything else. The parish I attended had women running everything, lesbians receiving communion wearing male clothing, etc., etc. Orthodoxy basically devolved into “Christian Buddhism” over the past 700 years, never evangelizing, becoming philosophically and theologically stagnant, or even regressing as it developed a revisionist approach to her own Fathers’ writings for the sake of developing a primarily anti-Latin hermeneutic of all her doctrinal authorities. The Orthodox Church is beautiful because some of her churches are isolated relics of a bygone age; she has many wise ascetics, as well. Also, unlike most modern “catholic” churches, she celebrates valid sacraments. In your local, “catholic” parish, the priest is probably not validly ordained, and he uses a rite which is probably invalid, and which is intended to undermine the prior tradition. But in a traditional, actually Catholic Church, one will find the old traditions of the West, valid Sacraments and, most importantly, Apostolic Faith.

       1. Br. Aurelius, I’d like to point my very pious Roman Catholic parents to your writings, but I don’t think they’d appreciate R.O.K. (lol). Do you post your writings elsewhere?

          1. Good point. I went to your ‘inchoate’ blog but found only a GoDaddy holding page.

          2. Yeah, trouble with the website. They’re demanding something like $100.00 to “reinstate” it, which I oppose almost on principle. I.e., even if somebody handed me a Benjamin and said, “brother, get that website going again,” I think I would decline the generosity.
             I’ve long had pretensions about getting the blog going, but the reality is that I’m leaving this Fall for a great opportunity, and am studying like mad to maximize it upon my arrival (there will be a very important placement exam). I may get a page up to inform people about my future plans with the hermitage and to solicit donations of time or money from people who want to help build/support it, and I may occasionally put a post up now and then. But realistically, I will not be able to operate a functioning, regular blog in the near future.
             My good buddy is talking about administering it for me while I’m gone, however, and working to make sure we can establish a chapel/base of operations once I’m out of seminary, an we live and it please God.

          3. Br. Aurelius – I encourage you to continue your dialogue with intelligent Catholics such as Bonald, the RadTrad (http://theradtrad.blogspot.com/2013/12/sedevacantism.html), and ZippyCatholic. I would appreciate hearing both sides of the argument for/against sedevacantism.
             I understand that you don’t want to be rude, but I think the matter is of such importance that it deserves to be discussed. As for myself, I think that Fr. Cekada’s arguments could as easily be applied to the old rite (which is evidently far more beautiful as with most rites pre-Vatican II) as to the new. That said, I readily admit that my knowledge of the issue is not very deep.
             As an aside, what is your view of Opus Dei?

          4. Sorry to have missed this.
             I don’t know enough about Opus Dei to have a worthwhile opinion. A cousin of mine is in the Opus Dei, and he is fairly typical of neo-Catholics – i.e., a commitment to the basics of Natural Law and of the great Christological and Mariological dogmas, but a complete ignorance of the Church’s Social Teaching, especially on Liberalism, which he replaces with a zealous commitment to the innovative (and heretical) teachings of JPII, being generally positive about “world religions,” optimistic about salvation for all kinds of non-Catholics, supportive of abstract rights, liberal democracy, etc. This seems to be typical of the broader Opus Dei – essentially “neo-Catholic,” meaning that they pass for being extremely conservative in most modern folks’ perspective, but would seem like the vanguard of Liberalism from pope St. Pius X’s perspective.
             Tell me more about what you mean, regarding Fr. Cekada’s argument. The old rite expresses exactly what Pope Pius XII said was required: “the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit” (Sacramentum Ordinis 4). There is no ambiguity in what is conferred, for it refers to the ordinand as a “sacerdos” (a word which can only be applied to priests or bishops, not deacons), then praying that God “comple” (“fill up to the top, complete, finish”) in him the “summam” (the “summit, highest point, principal or main element”) of “Thy ministry.” And, moreover, an undoubted pontiff proclaimed this by the Petrine authority to be valid, and it is the form used traditionally in all usages of the Roman Rite going back for centuries. Paul VI is a doubtful pontiff, the prayer is a heavily edited version of a prayer for the mere promotion of a bishop to archbishop, and is substantially a novel composition. The rite is at least of highly doubtful validity.
             I’m certainly interested in presenting the argument for Sedevacantism, as I found it convincing (and hence am now of that view). But many Sedevacantists are obstreperous nutters, so the last thing I want to do is to go around and clutter up people’s comboxes with the necessarily voluminous arguments (since the matter is so complex). Still, I’ll certainly try to interject when I can, and now that my blog is being more frequently maintained, I can post there. I’ve already put up one article on the topic.
             You may enjoy reading Fr. Cekada’s whole treatise on the new rite of consecration: http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf

20. So God isn’t meant to be real per se but the personification of Patriarchy?

    1. God dictated the rules to us, presented us with these conditions. I.E. a moral patriarchy is the best path for civilization.
       We are free to ignore these rules, but there are consequences (breakdown of society, no family unit, misery, etc..).

    2. No, God is real, and is the All-Father from Whom all paternity in heaven and earth is derived.

       1. God is real of necessity. We exist, therefore we were created. ‘God’ is our word for that which created us.
          Where atheists go wrong is in successfully only proving the non-existence of a contingent being like Thor or Zeus:
          https://orthosphere.wordpress.com/2016/03/20/the-troubled-atheists/

21. Ask yourself this….if god is a woman….why did we get the dicks and they get the periods?If the boss is female…she is one malevolent bitch…..just sayin`….

22. The conclusion that their true, sole objective is “contra-natural discrimination” is the final conclusion that I have arrived at as well. What you find, eventually, is that everything Leftists have worked to do is essentially invert everything that was traditionally prescribed. Homosexuality, Gender norms, Atheism/Nihilism, Gov’t ordained by the people instead of by God – just to name a few. The aim of every Leftist movement is nothing more than to produce a system that is effectively an inverse, or mockery, of the system God passed down to us.
    The interesting part about it, though, is that Leftists aren’t even doing it on purpose. If you asked a Leftist, they would simply say that they are doing what is “best” for the world, completely ignorant of how directly and obviously they are inverting the systems prescribed by God. One specific material example is how homosexuals during Pride Parades will often wear things like animal masks and horse heads effectively posing as abominations. Coincidentally, this is often how Satan is depicted as a mockery of God’s creation (goat-head). The majority of Leftists have no concept of this, yet somehow manage to engage in the exact same behavior. Even if you are a non-believer, you have to admit the freakish coincidence and the behavior being directly analogous to traditionally Satanic behavior. The average Leftist, thinking they have developed some new system of “freedom” and “equality” is doing no more than inverting what has been ordained by God.
    Another telling element of the correlation between leftism and apostasy, is the constant use of the key words: “revolution”, “rebellion”, “freedom” etc… It begs the question, freedom from what exactly? Rebellion against whom? Well, if you dig deep enough, freedom from virtue and rebellion against God.
    It is hard for any Western person to admit at first, but the advent of Liberal Democracy in the form of the French Revolution was truly the beginning of the social, cultural, and political degeneracy we have now in the West. Democracy is a form of government ordained by the people (Humanism), while Monarchy is a form of government ordained by God. The advent of Democracy marked a tremendous regression in the timeline of Western Civilization. That was exactly the point where the most cherished virtues switched from Piety, Honor, and Courage to Liberté, Egalité, et Fraternité. When you look at it like that, you see that it really is not so strange that we have arrived at the abominable Modernity we have today. This is simply the continuation of several hundred years of rebellion against the system God provided for us. The provide another material example; the mascot of the West switched from a male God, to a LADY Liberty – very telling of what was to come.

    1. Excellent comment. I think the French Revolution was itself the second phase of the revolution, which had begun about three centuries prior. But we’ll get to that, later!

       1. That which will celebrate its half millennium next year?

          1. Indeed, that Whore of Babylon with a penchant for projection.

23. “And that is when I realized that their real, sole, consistent principle, is contra-natural discrimination—i.e., in every place where reason and nature would draw definite distinctions and make a just discrimination in one direction or another, they are in favor of blurring matters and making an exactly contrary discrimination.”
    Right on target

24. “After a bit of reflection, I nearly concluded that the only two, consistent principles of the left, are 1) sexual “liberty” and 2) suspicion of any definite concept, let alone any definite truth.”
    What makes no sense to me about leftists is that their own post-modernist philosophy makes moot any of their passionate opinions. If everything is relative, then their frustrations with Trump running for president are just as meaningless as their exuberance for Sanders running for president.
    They vouche endlessly for moral relativism but ultimately will not practice it.
    At the core of their existence is a confused lie, hence why they are able to continue lying without a sense of guilt whenever it suits them.

    1. Exactly; I wish I could upvote your comment multiple times! It is concentrated stupidity and incoherence.

    2. “At the core of their existence is a confused lie”, that’s why they hate people who disagree with them and impugn their motives. In my experience, conservative people understand and take into account that not everyone will see things as they do.
       Left-wingers are the most unabashed haters and despisers I’ve met.

25. What can I do, as a European white male in my mid 20’s? What action can I take to prevent the decline? And haul my civilization kicking and screaming to its former heights of glory?

    1. Unfortunately that’s unheard of in history. The particularity of a civilisation is that it has a beginning and an end. The Egyptians, the Greeks, The Romans, the Mayans, they all ceased to exist. Like everything else here below, civilisations are governed by time. I think we may be entering a new technologically advanced “dark age” where greed, ignorance and stupidity will dominate. But that will eventually crumble and maybe a new enlightened and spiritual civilisation will emerge. Everything is a cycle, it’s just the way of the world.

       1. We are living in that age now. The 2 world wars destroyed the enlightenment civilisation that destroyed the civilisation of mediaeval Europe.

          1. Yes, it is a barbarism of the soul that has rapidly also eclipsed the mind. Soon we will be unable to continue to produce the gadgets we love.

       2. What are you doing to be prepared for the dark ages?

    2. Networking. Find the few like minded people in the world and create your own secrete club to get ready for what follows the decline.

       1. Suggestions for where to start? I’m currently looking for a church.

          1. I’ve been going to a SSPX church lately.

    3. I think the most important steps, are:
       1) Give God His due, to say everything in a very short phrase.
       2) Learn about your roots – learn about the ancient customs, rites, morals, etc., of your people. Strive to practice them, even if you have to do it alone. That’s a part of why my articles, especially around Christmastime and Easter, deal with the customs of the season. For example, I came to the Catholic Church as a convert. I thus strive to know the broader Catholic Tradition as an whole – Byzantine Rite, Roman Rite, the theology and the Fathers and Doctors of the Church from all lands… but, I’m of English background, so I got Fr. Rock’s “Church of Our Fathers” (which discusses the customs of the Church in England), I learned about English Saints, English customs, etc. If you’re of French, Spanish, German, etc. extraction, do the same with your own people.
       3) Like Monsieur de Charette said: find like-minded men and cooperate with them to live a pious life, faithful to God, your roots and each other, in common. Find a woman who feels the same, if you can; marry her, have LOTS of kids (no condoms or pills for you!), and raise them up in this manner of life. You will have to remain separate somewhat from the modern culture, especially for your kids’ sake: don’t fill their heads with the overstimulation of tv, to say nothing of the impious messages it contains against all of your most prized traditions and beliefs. But do discuss with your children the state of the modern world; when you teach them history, teach them the Leftist version of it as well; present Leftist arguments and ideas, and discuss why they’re wrong. Too many folk who homeschool their kids, shelter them entirely from Modernity and leave them defenseless when they meet it. If you raise a family that enjoys spending time together, observing the rites and customs of the seasons and the home, socialized properly with people of all ages, your kids will be fine, and piety can begin again.
       4) We may be in a losing battle, humanly speaking, at present. Be prepared to cooperate with like-minded folk for political goals and the triumph of piety, healthy nationalism and the Church in public life. But, be prepared to be bitterly opposed and possibly to meet with little success at present. Our likely vocation is to a slow martyrdom, or perhaps to the real thing.

       1. I respect your detailed reply.
          1) I had a great moment with God on my commute to work the other day. I’ve been offering my shifts to Him each day and it has had a huge impact. The power of prayer is something I’m beginning to learn and appreciate again.
          2) I’m very proud of my roots, and there is, I dare say no finer than St George. The story of his martyrdom, as well as the dragon legend was inspiring, even as an atheist. I’ll have to see if I can discuss this at work, especially as St George’s day approaches.
          3) I’m in the process of ‘testing’ my current girlfriend, Is she going to be a good wife? She’s doing well so far, but with room to improve.
          4) I want to provide a victory, a morale boost. Building a tribe is a goal. I’ve started to be open about my thoughts on an eventual collapse. People are listening and generally agreeing to that. Martyrdom? Now that’s a sobering thought.

          1. Sounds like you’re on the right track!
             Did you know the dragon legend is an allegory, about the struggle to establish reason and virtue in command of the soul? I think it’s a great legend for that reason alone.
             Make no mistake; as the article discussed, the one thing on which the Left/Rebellion is unified and organized, is impiety. If you attempt to stand up for it, even if not in an explicitly Christian manner, they will want to see you dead. If they have the power to kill you and get away with it, they will endeavor to do so.

    4. Well Aurelius knows how I feel about religion (and the concept of god, in general), so I’m not going to bother challenging that point but it please for your sake (and their’s) only “have lots of kids” if you can afford them, can give them the care they need, and if you want them in the first place.

26. Interesting article. I read the Aenead when I was young (and Enid Blyton too). I seem to remember him carrying his father around everywhere. At the time I thought in limited his freedom of action somewhat, but it’s an exemplary tale about family we should all bear in mind. Works metaphorically too, of course. Your father isn’t just your kin, but your origin, and therefore a part of who you are. The same is true of all your family, your kin, kith and country: which can be understood simply enough as where you hail from.
    The modern world as many have noted lacks a sense of roots and its own rootedness, or lack thereof. The need for roots may take the form of nationalism, or jingoism, or a return to a former place or time or whatever, but is rarely understood for what it is. Our modern progressive and revolutionary politics is premised on the denial of any such need, and of the psychological possibility of fleeing always from who and what one is. This is an important aspect of progress, which in the history of the last few centuries has often taken an overtly nihilistic and profane character in that it seeks to uproot us from our origins, and to negate what is, in favour of what ‘must be’.

    1. Yes, the “perfect” must be the enemy of the good… but even then, their definition of “perfect” is often “monstrous Satanism.”

       1. The gnostic cathars perhaps represented an interesting variation on the idea of ‘the perfect’ though (notwithstanding their conflict with the church). Mysticism is a high risk occupation perhaps

          1. Yes, the mystical authors and saints warn again and again in their writings that the potential for an advanced form of spiritual delusion is very high, for those who dabble in mysticism.

          2. Could you perhaps list a few of those sources to look into?
             I’ve seen you mention Traditionalist churches as well…could you please also mention some options for those of us that are unsure of which fit the bill.
             Love the articles! They are exactly what I have needed and I look forward to all of your writings.

          3. Thank you for the very kind sentiments.
             The best writings on the mystical life are those of St. John of the Cross and St. Theresa of Avila. One will derive profit from the earlier writers collected in the Philokalia as well. St. John of the Cross is the king, in my opinion. This is not to take away from the giants upon whose shoulders he stood – St. Denys the Areopagite, Smaragdus, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, etc. But St. John is the most detailed and thorough, including giving warnings about delusion in the spiritual life.
             Generally you will want to look for Churches of the SSPX or SSPV (they should come up easily with a Google search); also, Eastern Rite Catholic Churches can *sometimes* be an option. If you want to give me a general idea of your location (i.e., “Western Oklahoma” or something similarly vague), I’ll see what may be good in your area.

          4. You’ve just set me up with some nice additional reading for the next 1-10 years… much appreciated! I’ve heard of SSPX before and there is one within an hours drive from me but I see that you’ve responded elsewhere in this thread mentioning some additional options. Definitely a lot to consider. One of my local Roman Catholic churches has a priest who is seemingly a traditional sort of guy. I probably should seek him out one day to pick his brain.
             Thanks again! Best of luck with your future opportunity!

27. Great article as always Aurelius

28. Aurelius you’ve done it again. Great read.
    Impiety is the hallmark of modernity

29. Aurelius I noticed you use as a chief example of piety a non-christian, and also wanted to ask if you have any thoughts on piety with regards to Confucianism in which filial piety is a central tenet? Is it simply respect of something bigger than oneself? More?

    1. Not Brother Aurelius, but I like the question.
       Piety begins with the Lord, then family, and then the nation. For a nation is built upon the families that compose it, and a strong family should be built around God. Even in a culture that has a loose concept of the divine (as the Zen Buddhists), piety is to be praised and honored wherever it is found.
       If a man cannot be pious with regards to his family, bound to him by flesh and blood, how can we expect him to be pious with regards to nation or God?
       Thus, I would heartily support the filial piety of the Confucian teachings.
       With regards to “something bigger than oneself”, that’s mostly correct. In its basest form (piety to the family), that “something” is the family, the bloodline and its associated ideas and creeds. Piety to the nation is an extension of that same piety – honoring and preserving the bloodlines, ideas, and creeds of the collection of families that are the nation.
       Piety to God is somewhat different. In this case, it is not so much an outward display as an inward one. It is not an attempt to preserve the divine, but to seek its wisdom and live in accordance with that wisdom. This form of piety should be first and foremost, for how can a family be virtuous and right when they have not received the wisdom that conveys virtue and righteousness? And how can a nation be virtuous and right when the families and people that compose it lack the same?
       I’m certain that I’m inadequate to fully delve into the subject, but that’s my quick take.

       1. Firstly, great answer and very quick. As an atheist I search for meaning in the increasingly absurd world I find myself living in. I think you must accept the circumstances confronting you and ask “how would the best version, the ideal version of myself act?” And then try your best to adhere to that vision, you may succeed, you might fail but still try.

          1. “The Abolition of Man”, C.S. Lewis. Short, sweet, superb writing.

          2. Yes, I also recommend reading it.

    2. Yes, I thought of mentioning Confucianism and the Five Relationships, but entirely forgot to in the course of writing the piece.
       Piety is the respect owed to origins and those joined to us in those origins. I think of a prayer I regularly pray, which asks God “in His piety” to dissolve the chains of our delicts and enrich with grace and virtue all those “joined to us by blood or intimacy, confession or prayer.” It is respect for God, for parents and offspring, ancestors and descendants, fatherland, kin, countrymen and friends.

30. I am not disagreeing with the good father, however it must be noted that the Aeneid is a work of fiction. When Virgil wrote it, it was purely a work of propaganda for Augustus.
    although the Romans themselves believed they came from Troy, This is actually false, There is no archaeological evidence that they did. It is just something they promoted. The Aeneid, (a copy of which I’m looking at now sitting under one of my monitors, the other copy being on my shelf) was a poem written by Virgil during the reign of Augustus. (the first “emperor of Rome”)
    The Roman origin story as it sits now is actually a combination of two stories, the Romulus and Remus story and the “Aeneid we came from the fall of Troy” story. The Romans wanted to link themselves with Troy to give themselves a “noble” lineage. But even their own history was such that they had to do some crazy mental gymnastics to make it fit.
    This of course does not take away from any points of the good fathers thesis, only that the Aeneid is a work of historical fiction, composed for an emperor after a terrible civil war.
    What we know of the fall of Troy was “written” six hundred years after the fact. Homer was written down, but even so parts of Homer have been proven to be false. The Book II catalogue of ships actually represents classical Greece, not Mycenaean Greece. and the Aeneid was written almost 1200 years after the fall of Troy.
    The Aeneid, like the Iliad and the odyssey. (all of which are on my shelf) are pieces of Historical Fiction, the difference is that they were “written” 2000+ years ago.
    So what of it? If a culture, (as the Romans did) believes it to be true, and act accordingly does it make the reaction to the narrative false?
    So the fact that the Romans “believed” they came from Troy is all that mattered. Whether or not it was actually true made no difference.
    So for that matter the good fathers thesis on Rome is correct. If a people believe it to be true, regardless if it is false, they will act as if it WAS true. But we as thinking men must understand the difference.

    1. Well….it’s actually more complicated.
       The ethnic make-up of ancient Italy was complex. Not only were there tribes that spoke Italic languages, there were large Dorian Greek communities from which most Roman patrician families claim lineage. There were also Etruscans. Many, many Etruscan words made their way into Latin. Many ancient Roman customs had their origin in the customs of the Etruscans.
       Where the Etruscans came from has been a bit of a mystery. But it is possible that they are related to peoples who came from the Aegean or Anatolia such as the Pelasgians or Tyrsenians. So, it is possible that they are related to, or descendants of Trojans.

31. Wonderful post Aurelius I really enjoyed reading. Thank you

32. The comments by readers are good as well.

33. Your best article yet. Our society is built on the 500 year old rebellion that will be celebrated next year.

    1. Yes, which is also the centenary of Fatima and of the Communist Revolution in Russia.
       Tradition has it that the day of our Lord’s birth was also the day of His death (i.e., March 25th, though Medieval calendars always wrote Easter in on March 27th, simply so that “the feast of feast should not be lacking to the calendar”). In such years as the solemnities coincide, it is sometimes taken for a portent. It will not happen again this century.

34. Aurelius, I am working on a project and would like to discuss a topic that is giving me considerable trouble. Is there an email or some way I could get in touch with you online?

35. I keep coming back to this article. This is light that needs to be re-read. This is not just another ROK article. It’s one of the pathways to virtue, to the divine way. Providence smiles down upon us when He sees we’re struggling to walk in the lessons He left us. I don’t know what to say, except that we need more articles like this one. I wish I had a more sophisticated vocabulary to express my gratitude for exposure to this insight, but I am challenged. God bless, Aurelius Moner !

36. Good Article AM. As always. However, I find your lack of inclusion of Plato’s Euthyphro to be surprising here.

37. I wish i found this site years ago, truly refreshing to be around like-minds. Another great article.

Comments are closed.