The Sacred Heart And Masculinity

Before becoming Catholic, reverence for the Sacred Heart seemed like a devotion for silly women; this was not helped by the many lacy, pretty, effeminate pictures attached to this facet of Christian devotion. Also, having been an Orthodox Christian, the practice seemed odd, to me; many in Orthodox circles spoke of the devotion as being “Crypto-Nestorian,” as though it separated Christ’s Humanity from His Divinity.  Finally, it seemed to me that it was yet another example of modern “Churchianity” (i.e., all “love” and no consequences).

But, as I have come to see, the authentic spirituality of this devotion is precisely the inverse of each case.  Rather than being an effeminate devotion for silly women, it is focused upon the most masculine qualities of Christ.  Rather than being fraught with theological shortcomings, it is rooted in the profoundest doctrines of the Fathers on the Incarnation.  Far from being Churchian, the devotion deals extensively with God’s wrath and disappointment.

The Masculine and Feminine Principles

For all of human history, society has been furthered and protected chiefly by the labors and sacrifices of men.  We all know the saying: “no pain, no gain;” this is as true when are shredding our muscle tissue so that it can rebuild, or enduring discomfort and even pain to grow in virtue, as it is when men bleed and sweat for their countries and for their kin.   Thus, though many have balked at the idea of a “weak” or suffering God, we see that Christ’s Passion puts Him right in the center of the mystery of the human experience, which is trapped between vulnerability and strength, often preserving strength at a great price.  Media vita in morte sumus.


More than that, however, the Church always saw that there was an added mystery.  We have spoken before of how God is the supreme masculine, of which created masculinity is a shadow, and that the creature is feminine in relation to Him.  Christ, in emptying Himself of the exterior glory of the Godhead, in humbling Himself to be shrunk into a span, in putting Himself into the “feminine” sphere of creation and even consenting to be penetrated with the nails and the lance, seems to have inverted, as it were, the “Yin and the Yang” in the order of being.  And there is in this a great mystery.

In the splendor of the Divine Nature, God is Impassible and Incorrupt, the Masculine Act, never the feminine potential.  First Satan and his apostate angels, then man, insisted nevertheless on exalting themselves against Him, as though they could do Him despite or injury.  “Very well,” one could imagine God reckoning; “if you want Me to come down to where you can exalt yourselves over Me, subject Me to your whims, attempt to do Me harm and despite, then fine, I’ll play fair: here I come.”

But, though this condescension in the Incarnation appeared to put God in a position of womanly weakness (analogously speaking), it was His counsel that this should be the manner of displaying His nature to be of such invincible might, that when God our Father broke upon the sharpened daggers of this world, life and strength would flow out from Him so forcefully as to annihilate all weakness.  Man drinks this down as mercy or as wrath, depending upon whether he continues to resist the flood of His power, or learns to stoop and drink from the torrent.

Strength and Weakness; O Admirabile Commercium!

One will find many of the ancient philosophers, and also the theologians, speak of continence.  The idea is of “containing” one’s self, physically and spiritually, as a matter of manliness and virtue.  The body loses fluids for reasons related to weakness; injury can result in loss of blood, and “the life is in the blood;” labor brings sweat; stress and sorrow bring tears; sickness expels many fluids; our nether regions express the waste product of our mortal coil; a man’s mind is overthrown, his limbs grow weak and his body releases sleep hormones upon ejaculating.  As a general rule, men stressed the need to avoid the loss of vigor and life through moral and physical incontinence.

Yet here is Christ: emptied of His divine glory, and stripped even of His clothes; He has wept; He sweated, even to the point of bursting His capillaries and sweating blood; He is bleeding from innumerable flesh wounds; He spouts blood, riven through with nails; at last, as the final insult, a lance is thrust into His already dead Body, piercing the Heart and releasing a torrent of blood and water.  Well might He have said, “I thirst,” for He has been drilled full of holes and drained like a cask of wine pressed from the grapes of Wrath.

longinus pierces the heart

We looked at the mystery of suffering and its relation to strength; sometimes when the man bleeds, sweats, ejaculates, etc., though he grows somewhat weaker, new life or strength is defended or propagated elsewhere.  Even Adam, immune at that point to corruption or suffering, was reduced to a weakened state of sleep, for God to take Eve from his side.  For mere men, who are finite, there is a limit to this.  But the Lord in His shrewdness deceived the Devil with the bait of weakness.  The God Who came down to allow His creatures to visit the hurt upon Him in His Humanity, which they could not visit upon His Divinity, has had the last laugh.

For in reducing Him to the lowest pitch of humility, passivity and physical incontinence, with the thrust of the nails and the lance they have unwittingly burst the dike of the Divinity!  Now, from the Holy of Holies in the Temple that is God’s Body, the Sacred Heart of the Lord, flows a torrent of blood, water and fire, which deifies us, the deicides!  Such is God’s virility, such His power, such His potency, that when His creatures could finally do Him the hurt they wished, it caused healing, strength and power to flood out to every corner of the cosmos.  The weakness of God is itself strength beyond the mind’s imagining.

Saint John Chrysostom and the other Fathers, speak of how the Church was born from the side of the Lord, from the water and blood flowing from His Heart, just as Eve was born from the rib of Adam’s side.  The rending of the Lord’s Heart, therefore, is the husband’s betrothal of his wife; it is the father’s begetting of his children; it is the winning of the rights of conquest; it is the labor of the husbandman producing good fruit in season; it is the reminder of the subordination of woman to man, wrought by God with a belly laugh and a glint in His eye; it is the humour, the cunning, the meekness, the wrath and, yes, the ardent love, of the Supreme Patriarch.


One could say it is the passing of a certain kind of test, to which women often try to subject their men… but I will stop just shy of saying so.

The Patriarch’s Ultimatum: Take it or Leave it

While devotion to the Lord’s Most Sacred Heart is as ancient as the Church itself, it gained a new clarity of form and content as the modern age was born, and is one of three spiritual treasures given to man to warn him of the increasing urgency of making his peace with the Maker.  The devotion to the Sacred Heart acquired a special momentum from the Medieval devotion to the Five Wounds.  This devotion focused on the lengths to which the Patriarch has gone to recall His errant wife and children back to Him, as witnessed to in His Five, Chief Wounds: the hands, feet and side.  The wound in the side gained a special significance, as it opened access to His Heart, Origin of the Church and of the Sacraments, Fount of Forgiveness, Holy of Holies where Christ communed, in His Humanity, with the Father, and locus of all His intentions, vengeance and mercy alike.

Hence a common image of that age, is the Ostensio Vulnerum, showing Christ returning on Doomsday and showing His Five Wounds to all mankind.  The repentant see in Them the pledge of their salvation; the impenitent see in them the evidence of their crimes.  A vision oft-repeated in devotional literature at that time, was an apparition of Christ to an impenitent man on his deathbed, entreating him to repent by showing His wounds and saying: “look, these I have suffered to save you; accept them.”  When the man still refused, Christ reached into the Wound of His side, into His heart, and drew from there an handful of blood, which He then splattered all over the man’s face, saying: “Thou demon-spawn, this shall be a ready token betwixt Me and thee in the day of doom, that I would have done thee mercy, and thou wouldst not!”   Iesu, misericordia!

Ostensio Vulnerum Ingeburge Psalter

In the Heart of Christ we see, indeed, the depth, the ardor, the perfection, the super-abundance, of God’s love for man.  We see the assertion of His rights as much as of His providence towards us.  If, after condescending to indulge us in our lust to subject the Deity to our whimsy, we still will not bend the knee to the infinite grace and might which flowed from His rent Heart, then truly He has done all for us that could be done, “and we would not.”  All that remains is the expectation of severe judgment.  All the saints who refined devotion to the Heart, spoke of Its sorrow and wrath in the face of man’s indifference.

In our days, we see how hysterical and haughty many females have become, kicking against the goads of nature and resenting man his superior role.  Men could point to rows of military graves, the lives spent in back-breaking labor, the glories of art, architecture, literature and science with which we have showered them.  The day is at hand when, if we live, women will have to be dealt with severely.  But we must remember that, as women are to men, so we men are to our rightful superiors, chiefly God.  Let us not recompense Him by acting like odoriferous, lunatic, blue-haired dykes, ourselves.

I have spoken here of but one, central aspect of the devotion to the Heart of the Lord, which I think is most suited to ROK.  I encourage you to learn more about it; I have put some things on my blog about it, and will probably write some more.  Those who increase their devotion to the Sacred Heart, especially in this month of June, can gain many graces from God our Savior.  To Him be glory now and forever, amen.



Read More: Why Is Modern Christianity So Wimpy?

148 thoughts on “The Sacred Heart And Masculinity”

    1. The kratom bubble has popped I’m afraid. Kratom heads are going to have to become more clever if they want an upvote from me.

  1. Appreciated as always, Brother Aurelius.
    On a tangential topic, I find it interesting how this site has developed over the few years I’ve been reading. Talk of the week has been about liberty and freedom, and every week Brother Aurelius brings us Biblical wisdom.
    We’ve come a long way since “Fat Shaming Week.”

        1. I currently profit about 6,000-8,000 dollars /every month with my online job. Everyone ready to do basic at home jobs for 2h-5h daily from your living room and earn good payment for doing it… Try this work

  2. If Jesus’ sacrifice was necessary for humans to earn eternity in heaven, does that mean all humans after Adam but before Jesus’ time….are kinda fucked in that deal?
    The sacrifice wasn’t complete until they were already gone, correct?
    Otherwise great analogy…. if men don’t have principles and submission to higher virtue, how can we expect women to submit and recognize their need for us?

    1. Those who died before Christ are also saved in Christ; a very common icon, is that of “the harrowing of hell,” where Christ releases the prophets and patriarchs from the limbo of the Fathers. There is another pious tradition, not certain, that St. John, the Lord’s Precursor, also went before Him preaching the Gospel in hell, offering release to some of the souls. And, of course, those Whom God chose to save before Christ, through giving them the grace of contrition, charity, fidelity to grace, etc., are saved. Yet they had to wait, as St. Paul says in the epistle to the Hebrews, until Christ came, and then all were glorified together with the Church.
      The Scriptures call Christ “the Lamb of God slain before the founding of the Universe.” For us, His Sacrifice is an event in time; but it is an eternal reality for God.

  3. God created men to adorn Him. God created women to adorn men. Only through men will women know God…it’s said somewhere.

  4. God showed Adam what happens when you let a woman do your thinking for you. Paradise lost, baby!

  5. I would like to add 2 things that I know for alchemy.
    The cross is made of a yang : the father ( Fire- omnipotent), a yin : the son ( water- Misericord)) , the mix of both the Holy Ghost (air- Omniscient) all of them make the earth element : earth (eternity, the tradition, the mysteries). All this is base on a synthetic logic not an analytical one as we are used to be. We put thing in groups and family
    The creation, the universe, is like an egg, it is full, there is no place to add new things unless you substrate things from it to make place: Jews (Caher), Muslim (Halal) and pagans make animal sacrifices. Christian make masses where they sacrifice the lamb (Jesus) to bring down energy into our reality from the Celestial kingdom (religion = making a link). Out of this energy the priest charge the bread and give it to everyone so they can tune to the right/same vibration. Confession permit you to be more in tuned.

      1. Thanks, It is because I’m an acupuncturist and the Yin Yang reference kind of begged for my comments 🙂
        Thank you very much for your articles, very important for me and my family.

        1. yes very much. In fact we can say that Taoism is the search of an alchemist way to be immortal, physically.
          The way I see it, as for western philosophy, the classification of their elements and virtues can be put on a a Cartesian plan in X and Y while the Christianity is still using the same x and Y but ass the Z axis. This axis add the good and evil aspect that is missing form the 2 dimensions moral/energy/natural system.

  6. Br. Aurelius – what are the two other spiritual treasures that were given to man?

    1. Devotion to the Five Wounds featured prominently during the first phase of the apocalyptic Revolution, just as the Lord’s body was about to be torn apart. It was the defining devotion of the end of the Middle Ages, and it was under this banner that the Catholics sought to dissuade Henry VIII, peacefully, from his madness. It featured prominently throughout resistance to the great apostasy that then began.
      Devotion to the Sacred Heart featured prominently in the second phase of the Revolution, and our Lord requested specifically of the king of France that he consecrate France to the Sacred Heart in order to save that kingdom, and perhaps Europe, from the fate of regicide, atheism, socialism and disorder that would follow. The king refused until just before he died, when he attempted to do it from his prison cell, but the deadline had passed. It was one century to the day after the request had been made. After the horror of the Revolution, the French built a basilica to the Sacred Heart on Montmartre (the Hill of Mars), as an act of national repentance.
      Devotion to the unstained heart of the Blessed Virgin was offered to mankind by the Virgin herself at Fatima to combat the most recent phase of the Revolution (Communism, including Social Marxism). She explained at that time that, as man had rejected God’s overtures theretofore, the errors of Russia would soon spread and submerge the whole world. God was ready now to visit unprecedented wrath upon mankind; only at her request has He been pleased to wait a bit longer. Thus, as the Virgin made plain to the seer, Lucia, the devotion to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin, and the sorrows she held therein by compassionating Her Son His Passion, is the last possible remedy offered to mankind to spare us from the imminent threat of a punishment worse than any yet in history. Just as our Lord had done at France with His Sacred Heart, our Lady has asked at Fatima that Russia explicitly be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart by the supreme pontiff and all the bishops of the world. Our Lord destroyed the French Kingdom a century to the day after the request was made (and ignored). The Virgin’s first appearance at Fatima was on May 13, 1917. The request for the consecration of Russia came on June 13 1929. So, one way or the other, we approach an important deadline, perhaps.
      Catholics would do well, in this time of disintegration and of the Passion of the Church, to practice devotion to the Five Wounds, the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, the Rosary and the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin.

      1. Thank you Br. Aurelius. I will pray and begin to look into those devotions.
        On a separate note, as a former atheist and evangelical protestant, I find Marian devotion difficult spiritually; even though I understand the principle theologically. For example, with the Rosary I find it difficult to meditate on the Mysteries while praying the Ave Marias.
        Do you have any advice on how to understand this on a deeper level? Or for resources I could read to deepen my understanding?

        1. Often times I recite the prayers a little slower and take my time with them, many times we want to rush throught hem and not give them the attention they deserve. It is my understanding that we should meditate on the mysteries themselves between the decades (after reciting the mysteries themselves) and focus more on the prayers themselves during the actual prayer time.

        2. I wrote a little bit about devotion to the Virgin on my blog, maybe it will help somewhat:

          Second, True Devotion to the Virgin Mary by St. Louis de Montfort, and The Glories of Mary by St. Alphonse de Liguori may help.
          The most important thing, is to ask our lady to help you to understand her better, so that you may, through her, come to love her Son better. She is very eager that we should love her Son, so I can’t imagine she will refuse you in this prayer.
          The central thing about the Virgin Mary, is that she alone of all human beings made a contribution to God; whereas we all receive from God. She is the “weaver of the royal purple,” i.e., from her flesh and blood did the Lord Himself take His Flesh and Blood – the Flesh and Blood with which we are saved and nourished regularly in the Church. This has put her into a special role, where every grace that comes to men, passes through her Son, and then through Her; no man receives any grace, but that it comes through her first. This is true by nature, since it is by her that Christ came into the world, and it is also true by grace, since God, willing that she should be His own conduit into the world and into human nature, has willed not to communicate anything to the creation and to men, except through her.
          The Sorrows of Mary also took on a special significance; unlike other men, she committed no personal sins and thus she did not need to “repent” as other men do (though she was redeemed by our Lord, for she was not holy in herself, but only by grace and by being saved from sin). Thus, her sorrows and sufferings were wholly innocent, as were Christ’s, and this adds a special mystery to her sufferings that make them much more valuable and precious than our own acts of repentance. This mystery is closely tied to the doctrine that the Virgin Mary played a kind of sympathetic and assisting role to Christ in the act of Redemption. But that is “graduate school” of Marian theology, and many people would misunderstand it without a prior doctrinal formation.
          There are many excellent theological books available on the topic, as well, though they may be harder to read than the others I mentioned. On the page below, you will find some thorough theological treatises on the Virgin Mary (two in English, and some others; the first volume of Juniper Carol’s work is further down the page, since it’s title was formatted a bit differently than the other volumes; just ctrl-f search for all occurrences of “Mary” on the page, and you’ll find it):

        3. Yes, and that’s good advice. The only extent to which I meditate on the Mysteries while praying the Ave beads, is perhaps to imagine that I am addressing Mary “while” that Mystery is occurring, or I may, moving from one bead to the next, briefly recall another facet of that Mystery, and then Hail the Virgin with that in mind. But certainly one should not be droning the prayers unthinkingly while trying to imagine pretty pictures of the Mysteries of the Rosary in his mind.

        4. Thank God; if I have anything to say, it’s only because His Church taught it to me, first.

  7. As a devotee of the sacred heart myself, i find this text to be just wonderful. May Christ love continue to fill your soul brother Aurelius!

      1. It is. In Portugal the Church still has a lot of influence in society. In fact, without the social protection the Church gives to the population, specially through the Misericórdias, the social fabric of society would collapse in my opinion.
        If you can, come to Portugal in the summer: you will have hundreds of religious fests that are respected by both believers and non believers alike.

        1. I was in Lisbon once, it seemed to have a kind of faded elegance about it. It was hard to judge the social cohesion of the country from my visit. The catholic church seemed to be still important, but, mostly like Spain to the older people.

        2. That is the most important point. To make sure younger people do not forsake Christianity and its traditions. I believe its a battle that is going to be won.

        3. I am very glad to hear that. May the Blessed Virgin continue to keep Portugal safe, deep in her own heart, and her Son’s.

        4. Glad Portugal is still traditional like much of Poland is…although I hear the Church is under attach there, just like Pis. (Peace and Justice Party, a nationalist party…)

        5. I can’t trust Catholism mainly because they worship a woman that was obviously not a virgin

  8. “If we persevere we shall also reign with Him. But if we deny Him He shall deny us.” – 2 Timothy 2:12

    1. What an unthinkable privilege, to participate in God’s Imperium over the Universe.
      Rightly would man be condemned for despising such an undeserved honor.

  9. “To Him be glory now and forever, amen.”
    Good to see you posting Aurelius.

  10. Is it just me or does this theology seem a bit convoluted? Also why does Catholicism always resort to such bloody imagery? Its almost sadomasochistic.

    1. The problem with Christianity is that Jesus is a dying representation of God. Psychologically this must signify a very dark and occluded image of the divine to humanity.

      1. It appears that it appeals to some people. The reason why I’ll never know

        1. For my part, I always thought it related to the book of Job or some similar idea.
          Man used to be able to point to God and say, “You don’t understand. You don’t get it. We suffer and we die! What do you know of these things?”
          God came down and experienced this for himself. We can no longer claim that He doesn’t understand, especially given the brutal fashion in which He was sacrificed.

        2. It’s clear you are using your thought. This was not an event driven by man expecting God to answer to him or for God to gain knowledge. We are His creation, not the other way around.
          Look into God’s reply to Job’s questions about why he was suffering.

        3. Yes; He demonstrated that He was Himself willing to bear the curse that lay upon us. He is not remote from our suffering and limitations, but in a truly incomprehensible mystery, was willing to experience it in a real way, in Christ Incarnate.

      2. If that were the case, Christianity would not have been so readily embraced. People understand that Christ’s suffering as self-sacrificing for the sake of humanity.

      3. The Resurrection is prominent, as well. We just finished Paschaltide – two months of intense focus on the Resurrection, woven through all the liturgical celebrations and even private customs of the season.
        Even in the Mass, the Liturgical action progresses through the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ. The Cross is central to the Faith, but the Tradition is rich and multi-faceted, to be sure.

      4. It occurs to me: a work everyone should read in this regard, is The Dream of the Rood.

    2. “Is it just me or does this theology seem a bit convoluted?”
      Unless you specify why you believe it’s convoluted, I’m going to assume it’s just you.
      “Also why does Catholicism always resort to such bloody imagery? Its almost sadomasochistic”
      That only reflects your Freudian conditioning. Christ’s suffering emphasizes his human nature, as well as the extent he went through to save us.

      1. I mean sadomasochistic in the literal definition. As in a preoccupation with violence and suffering. It seems that Catholics never want to let Jesus off his cross. He is a perpetual martyr and we forever guilty. What a downer. Isn’t the Good News suppose to be uplifting

        1. Without the suffering of Christ, Christianity becomes an insipid “feel-good” religion, as can be readily seen within the “Churchianity” that Br. Aurelius describes. Christ’s suffering reminds us not only of his love for us, but that our actions have consequences.

        2. I’d add that, by and large, Western Christianity has become, “A God without wrath bringing men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.” These are the paraphrased words of H. Richard Niebuhr describing Liberal Protestatism. Sadly, it extends far beyond that nowadays. Thanks to men like Brother Aurelius, the true meaning of the faith, I hope, won’t be lost.

        3. I think this is the impression one gets on the outside. The Passion of Christ is central to the struggle of man in this world, where repentance and confrontation with the full reality of sin’s brutality is important.
          But within, one finds that there is indeed much more to Christ and the Saints than just suffering; there is much beauty, much that is inspiring and uplifting, much that is even of good humor. But yes, the Cross of Christ, and the Christian’s call to suffer with Him, is central and predominant in a real sense on this side of the grave.
          I will also say that my experience, with men at least, is that the contemplation of Christ’s sufferings does not so much wallow in sentimentality at the suffering; rather, it uses it to stimulate compunction and a sense of martial willingness to prepare one’s self for battle against his own weakness.

        4. I can’t help but be skeptical. I’ve seen people take this theology to some very dark places. Specifically in Latin American and the Philippines. Using it to justify many strange practices. The Passion is of course an important part of Christ’s life but perhaps devotion to it should be reserved for those who can handle it.

    3. The blood of Christ was the price of our redemption. To ignore this would be an act of immense ingratitude.
      But forget mere imagery, we actually go and eat and drink the body and blood of Christ. It’s horribly beautiful.

      1. Can you imagine that might be a bit off putting to non Christians?Most religions don’t have executions as their central icon.

        1. For the first few centuries after Christ the fish symbol was used and not the Cross for that reason. It was only as the Church spread through martyrdom that the full import of the cross was understood. I fear it is a lesson we may need repeated today.

        2. Absolutely. Particularly the teaching on the Eucharist. Even his disciples commented as much: “This is a hard teaching” (Jn 6:60)
          And we’re told that many of his followers left him after that.
          St Paul says we preach a crucified Christ – a stumbling block to the Jews and folly to the pagans. What you put forward has challenged sensitivities since it was even suggested – St Peter being scandalised at the prospect of Our Lord being handed over to suffer at the hands of men. His remonstration was strongly and immediately rebuked however.

        3. You should be less concerned about it being “off putting” and more concerned about whether or not it is true, no matter how you find it aesthetically.

        4. “We preach Christ Crucified; to Jews a scandal indeed, and to Pagans, folly; but to all those called, both Jew and Pagan, Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God – for the folly of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is mightier than men.”

  11. Good timing on this one. And I’m definitely stealing that word “Churchianity.”

    1. I can’t take credit for it; it’s fairly widespread in alt-right/reactionary spheres.

      1. What do you think about these sort-of “interfaith” or maybe even “cross-faith” retreats/schools/temples/hermitages like those that Thich Nhat Hanh has built here in the states, or say Merton’s home, the Abbey of Gethsemane in Kentucky, where laypeople of all faiths can come and study/pray/reflect in peace? Would you foresee the Ascension project compatible or willing to cooperate with a larger network of places that cater to seekers who are not necessarily of the same faith?

        1. I could see us doing certain things for persons of other faiths. But, as I’m not a syncretist, I could never permit other kinds of worship or ritual in the place I had hallowed to the service of God.
          There is such a thing as natural religion; providing a place where persons interested in exploring religious questions with a sincere interest in truth, virtue and morality could engage in this, would be acceptable to me. But nothing could be done, to give the impression that, in the end, “it’s all the same” no matter what you believe.

  12. I confess my utter surprise at how well this article seems to have been received. It may well be that those who disagree have elected to not read it or perhaps more shockingly they simply chose to keep their negative thoughts/opinions tk themselves out of respect for the religious beliefs of their allies.

    1. Mockery is usually ignored and any objections are answered fairly on Aurelius’ articles. Tends to mostly keep the trolls away.

    2. Old-fashioned word comes to mind…”respect”…on a red-pill website. Yep!

  13. What Papist tripe is this? Catholicism has zero to do with the Bible and all to do with Babylonian Mother and Son divinity worship. The only thing Christian about it is the names it gives to its pantheon of deities, or, as Catholics refer to them, “saints”.
    Catholicism denies the sufficiency of Christ’s redemptive work (since it requires multiple works to gain salvation), it denies His exclusive claim to be Mediator between God and man (referring to Mary as “co-Redemptrix / -Mediatrix), it denies the doctrine of Christ’s righteousness imputed to His people, it denies Christ’s commandments to desist from idolatry, it denies the explicit symbolism of the Lord’s Supper (“this do in remembrance of me”, not to “literally consume me”), its priests are forbidden to marry (a “doctrine of devils” according to 1 Tim 4:1), and on and on it goes.

    1. >I learned everything I know about Christianity from a comic book
      >The post
      Jesus explicitly teaches in Matthew 25 that we are judged by works, His Apostle James teaches that faith without works is dead, there is no “co-redemptrix” dogma and even if there were, all it means is that Mary participated in our salvation by saying yes to God, imputation of righteousness is a denial of the explicit teaching of theosis found in Scripture and renders Christianity meaningless, sola fide was literally Martin Luther changing the words of the Bible, and literally fucking nobody believed the Eucharist was symbolic until barely 500 years ago. Furthermore, Jesus and St. Paul very explicitly teach that celibacy is to be preferred to marriage.
      Not that you’ll care, because I just bruised your precious little feels.

      1. All quite true, apart from one small thing: Mary’s role as co-redemptrix is more profound than “just” her role in the Incarnation (if one would dare say “just” in such a connection)! Learn more about the Sorrows of the Virgin, from St. Alphonsus and other authors; there are deep and beautiful mysteries, there.
        Probably you already know this, and were just restricting your speech to what was relevant for our Protestant friend. If so, forgive the unsolicited advice. 😉

        1. Right, I was just trying to condense it to the bare essentials of the idea, which is how dogmas are generally defined anyway.

    2. Catholics teach that no man can merit justification by works; also, we do not teach merely that Christ’s redemptive work was sufficient, but that it was infinitely superabundant. We absolutely believe that any righteousness we have, is Christ’s and that in giving us the crown “He crowns His own merits within us” (a paraphrase of St. Augustine).
      The New Testament praises celibacy as the superior path in several places. To forbid marriage would indeed be evil; the Catholic Church does not forbid marriage; it merely requires that the clergy abstain from it, since the Bible teaches celibacy is superior, and as a matter of discipline we want our clergy to have chosen the best path in life.
      As to the rest of what you say, I used to think as you do; a little bit of real historical knowledge would instantly cure you, if you care to acquire it.

    3. Whoah, I am Catholic and your cogent argument really caught me off guard there. You almost convinced me dude! Not.

  14. Thank you ! Please keep on writing !
    And loved the fact that you put the Vendean Sacred Heart patch as a conclusion !

  15. Moner I appreciate every article you post.
    Christ died to protect his family. Is it sin to desire that for one’s own family here? Those whose name you bear and those whose faces you see in person. Did not God the Father bequeath unto man dominion upon the earth and all that is in it?
    If so then the most superior man upon taking his inheritance should therefore repent because he is superior?
    Christ died for all yet all men as we know on this cruel earth are not equal. Thus a superior man constructs his polis with this knowledge.
    As the bible says many wolves posing as sheep to ensnare the masses. Why would it be counted as evil to devour the wolves who assail you?
    If a man wants to harm you do you not have a right and duty to expel the aggressor from your lands?
    Christ may have died for us, yet if we do not live will there even be anyone to remember that?
    We must live and we must fight.
    That is all I know. For what God gave me I will surely use for me and my own.

    1. “The soldiers will fight and God will give the victory!” said Joan of Arc.
      If you read Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas, you’ll find the answers to your question regarding self defense.
      “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone
      responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires
      rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end,
      those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed
      force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their
      65 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 64, 7, corp. art

      1. Glad we have such a wealth of historical wisdom as a deposit of the faith. In my personal experience, I found it exceedingly difficult to understand the faith until I started reading and listening to Christian exegesis written prior to 1960. Relatively recent and easy stuff at first… CS Lewis, Chesterton, Knox, Newman, Sheen (you can find lots Fulton Sheen’s stuff on YouTube) and later the more challenging historical stuff from men like Aquinas, John Chrysostom and Augustine.
        While you can still occasionally catch some good teaching from the pulpit, so much of what counts as Catechesis these days is very, very weak spiritual nutrition for the modern neomasculine man.

        1. Very true. I have a catechism book for children written in the 60s, prior to Vat 2. There is a part on self defense and duty to your country, following the teachings of Saint Thomas Aquinas I quoted above.
          Imagine the modernist church teaching that…

        2. I have been making enquiries with local Catholic churches, because as someone brought up in a Protestant culture, everything about RC appears alien to me. I’m still drawn to RC though, and I’m looking for a deeper, more reverential and masculine form of Christianity. What questions should I be looking to ask the priest, to see if they’re traditional?

        3. I think the best is to go to a mass and observe. If it’s a Latin mass, women wear veils, dresses while men were suits and ties, you’re in a traditionalist one.
          Then you can talk to the priest, and ask him on his views on Vat 2, on the oecumenist politics of the Church (“every religions are equals, everyone luv each other”), if he’s a traditionalist he will not fear to condamn it.
          The best you can do is to look for a SSPX Church.

        4. It the Catholic Church were still like before, then I would perhaps be Catholic.

        5. Its not so much a matter of what the priest says, but what you see. Read the parish bulletin. Thats usually a good bellweather. Do they have regular confession hours? Traditional Catholic devotions? Rosaries? is the music sacred or modern guitar garbage? Is Sunday mass Christ centered and reverential or a loud, hand holding circus? A parish run by the FSSP (Fraternity of St peter) is your best bet.

        6. I always recommend that people approach the SSPX first. While no parish is perfect anywhere, the likelihood of serious problems at an SSPX parish is much lower.

          If you still have trouble, mail me at this handle, all one word, at

        7. If you haven’t already read it, pick up a copy of The Spiritual Combat by Lorenzo Scupoli. It’s a 16th century classic on Catholic Spirituality that has had influence far and wide including amongst the Eastern Orthodox. I personally found the language a little challenging to grasp at first… it’s not the language of contemporary Christianity. It’s heavy on things like “self mortification”. That has a largely physically masochistic connotation in our modern language. However, in the traditional sense it’s more to do with things like self denial, physical discomfort, mastery of appetite and self discipline. At the extreme end it has a harsh physical aspect to it but even that doesn’t strike me as nutty as people make it out to be. We think nothing of punishing our bodies in the gym and denying ourselves the pleasure of certain foods in our diet. What is that but a form of physical mortification for a higher end? We think of it only as a higher physical end – i.e. a good physique in order to, amongst other things, attract the opposite sex and get laid – but there can be a very real spiritual aspect to it too.

        8. And let’s not forget masturbating-a mortal sin. I just learned this is a mortal sin from a priest…

        9. Not all the priests are the same is what I found out…listen to Catholic Radio if you can, you will find some interesting viewpoints and Catholic Answers a good call-in show about the faith.
          To actually answer your question, I found some of the Pallotine Fathers to be quite conservative…although not all…they are independent of the local diocese to an extent, at least here in Buffalo area…
          Social justice seems to be a touchy-feely recent development compared to the deep spiritual issues that should be addressed….

        10. Make sure the church you visit is under the authority of the Pope…even though I disagree with much of what he says and does, no sect that ever splintered off from the Pope did well in history..remember Peter did some pretty bad stuff like denying the lord, and he was Pope also! Keep your eyes on Jesus…good luck finding a good priest, there are some…find one like Jan Pawell II (John Paul II)…he was active, masculine and a polymath genius….good luck!

        11. Ask an SSPX priest if they are under the authority of the Pope…I think they might not be…Catholic Radio said do not go there…

        12. Attended a local RC mass before. Issue is everything’s alien. I come from an Anglican/evangelical background. I’d love to experience a Latin mass, but I’d prefer to know what is going on first. The English mass was hard enough to get my head around.
          Bearing in mind my Protestant background, and very real experiences of God as a Protestant, I am pro Christian unity.

        13. I’m wary of SSPX… But they do seem to be the traditional type I’m looking for.

        14. Too few of those men in the RCC priesthood. Too many homosexuals and social misfits. In fairness, some of those homos can be good priests and it’s wise not to get too focused on outward appearances (recall that the “masculine” Legion of Christ founder, Marcial Maciel, was a total degenerate).
          Regardless, it’s not surprising that the appeal of the faith to masculine men is weakened when the clergy draws from a weak pool. As a youngster, I still recall my first parish priest – he was an old fart at that point but still a good looking and fit man, strict but gregarious and approachable. Amazing story. After Nazi Germany occupied his native country, he was conscripted into the Wehrmacht as an 18 year-old, fought on the Eastern front, was captured by the Russians and spent over two years as a POW. After finally making his way home he eventually made his way to North America and the priesthood. Amazing story.

        15. I think you can buy a Missal, if you really want to attend to a Latin one. Everything is explained and translated in it.

        16. “Not all the priests are the same is what I found out..”
          I have been saying that for years.

        17. I knew a retired catholic priest I met on a hike in Bavaria years ago. He was an infantryman who fought all the way to Leningrad in which he said they walked most of it. He quite plainly said from what he saw over the years, he could do nothing more than devote his life to G-d after the war was over.

        18. I hope there is no reconciliation for the time being. There are very serious problems at present in the Church, and many things that occur at present are completely unacceptable by the standards of Catholic doctrine and law, and in many cases flatly contradict unchangeable truths of the Faith.
          Truth be told, I am a Sedevacantist, insofar as it is my private opinion that many modern popes, and many other clergy with them, have openly apostatized from the Catholic Faith through the profession not only of heresies, but in fact of an entirely new religion which is essentially Syncretism or Perennialism. The crisis is so far advanced, that men like John Paul II are now regarded as “conservative,” when in fact he merely stood up for Natural Law (i.e., things that even Jews and Pagans should know), selling out specifically Catholic doctrine and identity worse than any figure in history before him, with the possible exception of Paul VI.
          I understand that my personal opinion is not an authoritative decree, and until we have an authoritative decree from the unambiguously orthodox, valid clergy of the Church, we sadly must rely on our well-informed consciences to make the best decision we can, in submission to the tradition and the Magisterium’s constant teachings. But for what it is worth, it is my private opinion that many men who present themselves as clergy of the Catholic Church, are in fact notorious heretics and apostates, whom Catholic doctrine holds to be self-excommunicated persons, and hence not Catholics at all. For that reason, I think it is crucial that the SSPX continues to stand apart as a witness to the world that all is not well in Rome and in the modern-day, mainstream institutions using the title “Catholic” for themselves. If the SSPX were to reconcile, it would seem to imply that Tradition is an option, one that can be tolerated by Rome, alongside the many other options equally tolerated by Rome. If the SSPX and the LCWR are both fully approved by Rome, what can it mean, other than that Rome has no substantive doctrine at all? In fact, Tradition is the norm to which even Rome must yield.

        19. I’m conflicted about the SSPX. They give valid sacraments and are validly ordained which is great. Yet It seems to me that they are inconsistent they recognize Francis as pope, who is obviously a heretic, but then publicly disagree, and disobey him. If Francis is the Pope then the SSPX owes him loyalty and obedience. Also by recognizing Francis as Pope are not the SSPX recognizing a heretic as Pope, which would mean the faith has defected?

        20. Thank you for your fair and quite instructive answer. I will look into the terms which you used and seek out more truth. My gut feeling is that you are probably right…however, my wife assures me that NOBODY who has ever stood against The Pope has ever prospered. A conundrum, not the least of which I want to please my wife…she studied history in Poland and knows her stuff.

    2. I agree, and it looks like other men have already given good answers below. There is a distinction between the Evangelical Counsels and the Commandments. Christ point a superior way of detachment, to those who wished to be perfect; this involves embracing celibacy, poverty, obedience, etc., to an heroic degree. But this does not take away the natural good of procreation in marriage, or of providing for one’s family, or of giving orders and exercising authority and force when required. Those who remain “in the world” are required to pursue the ideal insofar as they may… but they can never pursue it at the expense of their legitimate DUTIES towards their families, nations, community, etc.

      1. I do not know of any protestant leaders that would even address these issues. If they do it must be with a weak voice, because I’ve never heard or seen any except one.
        I used to hear the sermons of a fire and brimstone preacher who would constantly speak about the importance of understanding predestination. He was a very studied man with strong convictions. I learned a great deal from his teaching on the textus receptus and the masoretic text.
        Ultimately I left that church because I didn’t want to be a hypocrite going there while I worked at a bar and he would never want any of his congregation to do that sort of thing. He believed alcohol was always wrong to drink. He was basically a modern puritan preacher.
        It was later on that I found and understood that Protestantism is just a further Judaization and divisive form that leads to destruction.
        Now I’ve realized that of course the will of God is ultimate and supreme beicause it has always existed.
        That will is in me in my “self” as a microcosm while I live on this earth.
        I am, that I am.
        It even says in genesis that we are little g,,,,,,gods.
        Not to recognize that will and exercise it is a sin.
        Surely it means death not just for the individual but death for cultures and peoples when they adopt such malicious depravities such as liberalism, the bastard child of Christianity.
        Herein lies the crux of Christianity. Jesus said that the meek shall inherit the earth. That weakness is strength. That the strong should break their backs and stifle their flame to nourish those too lazy or weak to have any fire themselves.
        Jesus says to turn the other cheek and allow others to beat and torture you…….just because. He gave the example himself to do so and then commands we spill our blood too.
        Not physically fighting for anything at all, especially not our blood families whom Jesus said we must hate. He also says that he comes to divide us from our blood families. Not in the defense of your homes and your kingdoms because Jesus kingdom is in heaven.
        To hate sin but show love towards those who sin against you and/or would kill you.
        This “love” idea is romantic, infantile and utterly destructive. One need only look at mainstream Christianity this very moment to see its fruit of absolute depravity, weakness and cuckoldry. Fertility rates show that the effect of Christianity is suicide for a people and also why a more robust k-selected culture/religion is winning this war.
        Today Christianity exists as a religion of opposing factions all claiming the knowledge and practice of the one true way. They consist of varying ethnic makeups and conflicting ideologies.. Even the orthodox faith has been completely subverted which is plainly obvious to anyone. But this is nothing new since heresies where wide and flourishing throughout the history of the church.
        The strength of orthodoxy is not from Jesus words but from the structure of the religion and that was taken from the superior Romans and Greeks.
        The syncretic religion of the middle ages was a religious system that looked nothing like what passes for today’s bastardization. They amalgamated forms and symbols from pagan religions perhaps to swell adherents.
        I used to look at this as a bad thing. Now I’ve changed my mind. In doing so it managed to synthesize the peoples and form a strong force of order, culture and cohesion.
        This religion also through Constantine managed to amalgamate the will to power.
        “in this sign you will conquer”
        I don’t personally know any Christian alive today that would go to war against his enemies like the crusaders.
        In the middle ages they had the Dream Of The Rood. Jesus was seen as a warrior who was laid in a kingly sepulcher.
        Today we have some faggot singing about his “love affair” with Jesus as he cries his gay boy eyes out. Some androgynous creature whose gender is a mystery plays electric guitar with a sleeve of tattoos adorning its arm.
        I’ve actually seen this shit.

        1. I can understand your frustrations. A few thoughts to ponder:
          1) Jesus holds forth the example of being willing to set one’s own self aside; yet in the New Testament itself, He shows preferential treatment for His race and family and friends, eviscerates the Pharisees verbally, takes the whip to the money-lenders and makes it clear to His judges and persecutors that He has the power to annihilate them all, but that He is submitting voluntarily to their abuse for His own purposes.
          2) He also promises more than once to return, He promises that He brings a sword and discord, He promises to cast fire upon the earth, He promises to destroy the world; He is depicted as returning with a sword, bloodstained garments and infinite wrath. In other words, the New Testament portrayal is not as one-sided as modern-day Churchians would have it.
          3) The momentary weakness, it is made clear, and the counsel of personal imitation in dispassion and setting aside of the ego, is for the twofold purposes of Forbearance, and making way for a far greater Strength to act. Here is how I have visualized Christ’s Passion – something I allude to in the article, here: there is a vast sea of infinite power and might; floating somewhere in this infinite abyss of power, is a tiny speck of dust. This speck of dust is the entire universe, everything created. On this speck of dust, many infinitesimally small atoms are bitching inanely at their Maker, but they can do nothing to Him. So the infinite abyss of power fashions for itself a special atom in this speck of dust, which it uses as a kind of singularity in which the infinite abyss makes contact with this finite speck, and He dares the wretched creatures to come and attack Him, now. They do so, and when they puncture Him with the nails, the spear, etc., this vast abyss of infinite power flows into the speck. So, even their pathetic attempts to harm Him, have resulted in the interpenetration of the created order with the power of the infinite abyss of the Deity. This produces a conflagration, beginning a process that polishes, brightens, purifies and deifies the receptive, and builds up to the eventual incineration of the intransigent.
          The point? The “weakness” of God was not weakness; it was a ruse designed to mock the weakness of the creation, and to actually turn weakness itself into the vehicle of strength, as an illustration of the perfection of the Deity’s absolute might. Hence, the Dream of the Rood presents the Cross as what it truly is: a paradox of weakness and power all at once. The idea that weakness can become the vehicle of a greater strength, is not unique to Christianity. It is taught in all the religions with a profoundly philosophical dimension (Hinduism, Taoism, etc.), and is also obvious in nature, as I briefly explained in the article.
          The Christian who pursues complete self-emptying will become the strongest kind of being; but for those who do not wish to volunteer to give up licit and permitted goods, having families and countries, etc., the Church teaches that they should pursue the ideals as fully as they may, yet THEY MUST fulfill their duties to their family, nation, etc., by being willing to work, to fight, to plan, etc., for the common good.
          So, nothing in Christianity should lead one to think that weakness is an end in itself; it is always the vehicle to a greater strength. And if one continues to use the licit goods of this world, Christianity does not permit him to neglect to treat his own family, country, kin, etc., with preferential treatment, provided this does not require him to support any intrinsic evils. Liberalism is not the bastard of Christianity; Liberalism is the last uprising of Satan, permitted by God, which arose by corrupting Christianity and its ideals, first in Protestantism, then in the idealistic forms of Humanist Revolution, and finally in pathetic obsessions with fairness and money via Marxism, social and political.

  16. Wow it really speaks to how much we don’t deserve salvation when God twice gives us 100 years to do one thing and we don’t (the way things are going I doubt we are going to consecrate Russia). We should all be thankful that God is infinitely merciful.

  17. All religions (including all political systems which are nothing but a form of religion, even if without a transcendent or revealed “god”), are a form of mental illness, and the greatest form of Mind Control used to suppress Real Free Speech. History proves it.
    Moreover, religions are paranoid delusional psychosis in which the delusions develop slowly into a complex, intricate and logically elaborated system, with or without hallucinations and with or without general personality disorganization. Sometimes the fixed delusional system is encapsulated and leaves the personality relatively intact, giving the delusional paranoids the occasion to build up up a following who believe him or her to be a genius or inspired. “Believers” have complex rule structures they can get very OCD about and depending on the severity, become more paranoid, thinking themselves to be more important as against their surroundings. This can allow them to contextualize the feeling by associating their inner “certainty” with messages fro God or, in extreme circumstances, actually being God. Three major world religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have the origins in a Moses, a leader who spoke to a burning bush, in a Paul, who fell off his donkey transfixed by a vision under the burning sun, and in a Mohammad, a seeker dealing with sensory deprivation in a cave where he talks to an angel. Who’s to say – how about the insomniac dyslexic metaphysician up all night pondering the existence of “Dog…”

    1. … aaaaaaand if you want to make your sacred heart practice really good ten use lots of KRATOM!!! Your level of delusional devotion will be unsurpassed with no effort!!!!

    2. I thought new atheism crap was already gone, like any other pop culture thing…Delusions, ocds, freedom of speech??? You forgot the flying spaghetti monster…Come on: you are better than that.

    1. Jed, I normally agree with you on religious matters. One thing that has irritated me about Protestant religions, however, is their opposition to other Christian religions. I had this Baptist friend through high school at I time that I was pretty much atheist. We rarely discussed religion. When I was 23, I started talking to the Mormon missionaries. His whole family invited me over and cornered me and told me I was making a big mistake and such. It was as if they thought I was better off as an atheist. I spent 2 years as a missionary. One thing I learned is you cannot convert anyone by telling them they are wrong. All it does is make you look like an arrogant windbag. Instead, work on common beliefs and build from there. Help others come to the conclusions themselves.

      1. … Wow. Thanks for sharing your experience (elder) brother Johnson. Appreciate that. Hope you had a good experience as a Christian missionary.
        Yeah, I totally aggree with what you say in that one cannot “convert” someone by just telling them “they are wrong” as it makes the teller look like a “arrrogant know-it-all”; which NO ONE likes. Even other “know-it-alls” lol. But, as a believer we are to at first PRESENT THE TRUTH and call out the “error of ways” so that then that person can (eventually) decide to believe the actual truth or not as it comes to their realization. A believer (e.g. “Christian”) does not “push on” or *force* someone to admit “they’re wrong; they’re wrong” as only GOD and the person’s conscience is what works in that individual’s heart.
        Brother… I’m NOT into “religion”… AT ALL. I’m not religious. I’m simply a BELIEVER of the LORD JESUS CHRIST and HIS WORD (King James Version Holy Bible [KJV]). Anything that has to do with “religion” and “spirituality” apart from Christ is MAN-MADE GARBAGE. It’s one of the “Devil’s Multi-Variety Candy” of religion of man; meaning a FALSE religion for every “taste” a person has.
        Also, I’ve come in contact with Mormon missionaries before… as well as the Jehovah’s Witnesses… Though they try to “recruit me” into those wicked, FALSE organizations, I counter-witness to them as the Lord leads in the Spirit and tell them “Mormonism” and “Jehovah’s Witnesses” are FALSE man-made religions that are AGAINST God’s Will.
        ” Instead, work on common beliefs and build from there. Help others come to the conclusions themselves.”
        Yep; that’s what I do; or at least attempt to do most of the time in my intentions. I also just share out main points and information I do believe need to be known and discussed. But definitely: we must WORK with COMMON BELIEFS to build up consensus with everyone; though ALL the information needs to be presented as well for truth to be identified.
        Thanks for your reply (elder) brother Jim. Amen.
        ~ Sincerely,
        Bro. Jed

  18. I must be dumb because I don’t know what the hell this person is talking about. All I see is a guy dying on the cross in glory to god because some bitch gave Adam an apple in defiance of gods orders. When Adam decided to follow the little hypergamic bitches orders instead of the Gods, all hell broke lose.

  19. I’d be interested to know what you think about the claims that the real third secret of Fatima was never revealed.

    1. Never formally and clearly revealed, certainly not. But, in hindsight, I think it’s fairly clear what has happened.

  20. Why are the hand wounds always depicted artistically on the hands when they would have to be on the wrists between the radius and ulna?

    1. My understanding is that nails were in the hands and the wrists, which recalls the Isaiah 22 prophesy of Christ as the holder of priesthood keys, “nail in a sure place”

    2. Actually, the consensus seems to be that the hands could also have supported the nail and the weight of the body; already in the earliest years of the Church the artistic tradition shows the hands being wounded, and the Latin editions use “manus,” a word specifically for the hands, to denote the place of the nails. The New Testament’s original Greek uses a word that can refer to the wrists and hands. And, these were the people who regularly used crucifixion, so it must have been a possibility in their eyes.

  21. Looks like a great article, brother Aurelius. I have been saving it for a time when I can digest it in peace and quite–not easy with a couple of six month olds around. Thanks for your spiritually inspirational works, I always look forward to them.

    1. Well, that’s very kind; if there’s anything good in them, then Deo Gratias.

  22. Another winner AM.
    I have a question. I don’t know much about, forgive the nativity of my verbiage, being a monk, brother etc.
    You are quite obviously more than just smart but well trained in how to write in an academic fashion. Is this something that you learn in the process of becoming a monk or were you an academic prior to (or concurrently with) your tenure as a brother?
    Again, please excuse the sloppy verbiage, the monk world is one I have zero experience with and am very curious about so I ask you to kindly overlook the nativity how I address it. I don’t know the right jargon.

    1. By a strange twist of fate, I actually entered University after becoming a monk. I earned two BAs, though most of the courses taken for those were graduate level, and then I have another year of graduate studies after that.
      However, Academia is so atrociously incompetent these days, that I can’t really credit college with teaching me anything – excepting for the very fruitful relationship I had with two professors who taught some of the courses for my Latin and Medieval and Renaissance Studies degrees; they were great people and scholars (and man and wife).
      But in terms of writing well, one can only pick that up, I’m convinced, by reading good writing – and lots of it. I genuinely love Shakespeare, Chaucer, the Pearl Poet, Virgil, and others, to be sure. And a great deal of the men I read coming into the Faith – solid theological writers such as LaGrange and Blessed Dom Columba Marmion, greats such as St. John of the Cross and St. Robert Bellarmine, thinkers like Chesterton, Belloc, Demaistre, etc. – are obviously wise and competent men, and write very well. If one makes such authors his bread and butter, he stands a good chance of becoming a better writer than most modern professors.

      1. interesting that you would enter academia post becoming a monk. Brother Moner there is much of interest in you.
        Agreed about what academia has become. There are gems of professors hiding out at most schools, but most of them are marginalized and treated as odd ball outsiders by the main stream.
        Yes, reading does beget good writing. Modern professors, as you point out, can’t and don’t teach a student how to write. When I would teach into classes it was always depressing to me that I first had to teach my charges how to be students, then teach them how to study and then teach them how to write. By the time I had even a few of the students capable of actually learning something it was time for them to go.
        The solution is both simple and impossible. The number of universities (along with the number of students and the number of faculty members) needs to be reduced by 80% and university needs to be specialized for very certain fields, absolutely free and only available to people who show high potential at a life that would require it. The main stay ought to be trade schools where most of the students who are poor students, who are being taught by poor faculty will wind up anyway (only with a ton of debt and older than people smart enough to start out that way). Will never happen though so why bother.
        Meanwhile, as always, a pleasure to read your articles.

        1. If all universities were free like Cooper Union used to be, only the best and brightest could get in due to natural competition. Cooper students were unbelievably smart compared to the general population of New York City and environs…Europe does this, my wife is the product of a Polish University system and she is very very very smart…more public Vo-tech schools and more affordable trade schools for high-tech manufacturing (like robot maintenance and programming for welding etc) might be the way to improve our country from within…I heard one time the reason for Germany’s manufacturing might is due to its highly educated technical class, and not its engineers which are just ok compared to ours…

      2. Brother-you are a heck of a writer! Your article was a real -page-turner. Are you going to write any books?

  23. one other thing: “In our days, we see how hysterical and haughty many females have become, kicking against the goads of nature and resenting man his superior role”
    I am assuming you used hysterical here intentionally because of its etymology and if so, just really fucking well done brother.

    1. At this point, that’s practically the only sense in which I use the word.

      1. Well done. It is a word that really needs to be brought back into its proper context as it is a perfect description of a state of mind which can only be the direct result of having a uterus.

      1. Yes, “hysteros” is Greek for “uterus” or “womb.” So, when one is “hysterical,” he is literally acting like someone with a vagina.

  24. Therefore, in the name of free speech:
    Hail the infallible teachings of the infallible Church of Christ on the masculine and feminine principle. How could we red pillers properly live without them. Think of the Blessed Virgin Mary!
    The real important thing to understand is that there would be no Blessed Heart without the Mary!
    Therefore, in the name of free speech:
    what we need, as red pillers or wanna be red piller Kings, is an apology of the Virgin Mary and her wonders, of that humble servant of God whom even God looks up to, because without Her, His most important plan of Salvation of Human Kind would never have been possible!
    Of Mary, that young Jewish girl, probably only about 12 or 13 years old when the angel Gabriel came to her… (no laws about pedophilia at that time, eh…)
    Mary, that fearful little girl who could never have expected to hear the most incredible news — that she would have a child, and her son would be the Messiah, the mother Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world!
    Of Mary, that willing servant who God Himself put on the pedestal forever, making her even miraculously ascend to Heaven before she died!
    Of Mary, that mater Creatoris and refugium peccatorum as well as domus aurea…!
    Yes, that’s what we need:
    please dear Aurelius Moner soon to be named the most outstanding supporter of red pillers worldwide and of the wannabe red-pill kinks (what is there to remind us of kink gore in a bloody heart used for devotional purposes?), when are we going to see an article with the proper apology of Mary the Western Woman-God so that we can finally understand the central role of that divine creature and understand the absolute necessity of expanding our unending devotion to her, that Regina in caelum assumpta, and forever look up to the Woman who represents all Women forever and ever in the name of God and Jesus Christ our Saviour, Amen?
    Let us know, we anxiously await your words because you are the life the truth and the way for all of us.

    1. I made a small beginning of talking about our Lady on my blog. Perhaps I will speak of her here; we’ll see.

      1. I would like to say that Protestants have thrown the Baby Jesus out with the birth water. Consider that the fetal Lord is not adored as the same Crucified and Risen. Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception is the very ground of both personal and impersonal creation. While other traditions teach contact and reliance with Her impersonal aspect, they can never know Her as a person, and neither will they admit to Her Son’s Incarnation as a man, albeit one in zygotic stages of development. Even Krishna, incarnation of Vishnu, was not born to a virgin, as Devaki already had borne 7 sons. The Blessed Mother is Mary, feminine principal of the entire cosmos and its panoply of individual beings, and is present to us Americans in Her garb as Our Lady of Guadalupe, the woman crowned in stars. All individual, personal existence, excepting that of the angels, arises from her womb, the transcendent field of being.

        1. And, even then, she is the Queen of Angels, and the channel by which the “Mystery, into which even angels desire eagerly to inquire,” has arisen. She is the Mother of the Lord, Whom they serve.

    2. Ok…there COULD have been one Woman with the capital “M”…once..))..but this spawn nowadays…mmm…what a plethora of waste…

  25. Thank you so much for these articles with a true Christian perspective on masculinity

  26. Pretty images Thou painteth with Thy words, oh Golden(mouthed) One…;))…Even I enjoyed this article and the display of Thy devotion…)))
    Alas…if only the One Who Is would love all His children equally…

  27. Cool article! As a new Catholic I appreciate it and will look into this when I talk to my Godfather who is a man amongst men.

  28. The fifth wound.
    It is providence that at the same time the devotion was revealed to Sr. Alacoque, it was the subject of a protestant book.
    Oh blood and water which gushed forth from the sacred heart of Jesus as a fount of mercy for us, I trust in thee.
    We often forget masculinity itself has an end, an telos, a purpose beyond itself. It is to go out and redeem – fix – things. Align things to God.

  29. The Sacred Heart is in itself a Symbol of Catholic Reaction against Degeneracy and Modernity(or rather a call for the Church to reign over Society and State).

  30. You know in religious scripts they speak about how just reading a few words can change your life around?
    That’s how it was for me and RoK God bless this blog now I can be a man again.

  31. No, no, this will never do. Christianity is the ultimate female religion. This is why, for example, why the Roman Christians virtually gelded its priests. It was the new religion’s femininity that enabled it to enter the Roman upper class though women’s affinity for it. It is why May became Regina Coeli, to compete with and then supplant the pagan Egyptian goddess Isis who had the same tittle
    The effeminate aspect of the religion has been documented repeatedly. It became an issue in 18th century United States as President Theodore Roosevelt noted. in the 20th century it became an active proponent of Woman’s issues. It was the effeminiate element of Christianity that attack mens’ pleasures such as prostitution and alcohol. When people admire masculinity,, they are admiring the remnant of the ancient pagans, both Greco-Roman and that of the barbarian tribes that conquered them.
    So which side does one choose? Or, is it that Christian males are spiritually female, at least in part, the same way are all spiritually semites?

Comments are closed.