Greetings to the men of ROK; as promised, this week I begin to address the topic of prayer. I made allusion, last week, to prayer as a “liminal” action, and so it is; prayer is a threshold in man’s relationship with God. Many opposite poles unite in it: finite and infinite, absolute and contingent; slavery and sonship; alienation and intimacy; and so forth. Along this line, a paradoxical prerequisite to drawing near to God, is the Fear of God. For us to have any sense of the sacred, we must have reverence—i.e., holy fear.
In our era, blasphemy and vulgarity are the norm. Any kind of high standard, as “red pill” men should know especially well, is mocked and mischaracterized; high standards are bigoted, the signs of a joyless, narrow and judgmental mind. To be sure, the “church lady” has always been a phenomenon; women tend to conform to the reigning orthodoxy of any age or locale; there have always been flotillas of disapproving hags, who love bossing others about and enforcing conformity. And some contemptible men are also of this type. Furthermore, an atheistic or spiritually tepid society will be indifferent to blasphemy.
Not many years ago, I bought into this pejorative portrayal of all pious persons. “If God is God,” I reckoned, “He is not hurt by what we say about Him; people who get upset when people make fun of their religion are defending something that shouldn’t need defending. And, we have free speech; so they’d better just get a sense of humor about it.”
Now, it certainly is true, that God is not diminished or hurt by what we say about Him; but the crime of blasphemy is in itself an atrocious thing, something which ought not to blacken the fabric of existence. And what it certainly does harm, is man and the society of men. At base, to blaspheme is to mock every (transcendent, moral) standard, and every excellence—even the concept of excellence—because it sets at naught the Fountainhead, which gives meaning to such concepts.
Such is the reverence of great civilizations, that they have taken care not to give even accidental offense or slight to what they consider holy. “Sin is in the will,” St. Augustine said – meaning that one and the same act may be a sin or not, depending on the knowledge and intent of the man committing it. But in the tale of Actaeon and Diana, or the many legends depicting innocent humans running afoul of the fay folk, or even in the tale of how God slew Uzzah for touching the Ark of the Covenant (with good intentions) we see the sacred as something perilous, dreadful and potent in itself, unmoved by our protestations of benevolence.
For me, the legend of Actaeon and Diana is one of the more potent. Actaeon saw the sacred unveiled—i.e., Diana, naked at her bath. For his transgression of the sacred, he falls from his position of lordship over the beasts; he becomes one of his usual prey, and is slain by the dogs that formerly obeyed him. This is what men saw in blasphemy, the transgression of the sacred: the loss of the right relation of man to the gods and the cosmos, in an inversion lethal to man.
Whether we consider the inviolability of the sacred in itself, or the logical necessity of revering the sacred, if we wish to preserve any meaningful concept of the Good (and hence of virtue or of an upright civilization), it is clear that we cannot omit reverence towards what is holy.
So, my first piece of advice on prayer, is to cultivate the attitude and habit of reverence, which puts us in right relation to God and the cosmos, and produces the humility necessary for obtaining the Divine assistance. What is reverence? How do we show it?
The word reverence derives from the Latin revereri; re is an intensifier, and vereri means “to be in awe of, to fear, to respect.” So, “reverence” is “intense awe, fear and respect.” This is the profound sentiment of a man, not the cavalier presumption of a yoga mistress or church lady. Indeed, one of Satan’s great victories in modernity, has been to destroy the masculine virtue of religion even amongst “religious” people, exchanging it for effeminate decoys. The French reverie probably approximates most people’s idea of reverence – being dreamily enraptured with religious feelings.
Given what has gone before, it will be easy to understand why most men throughout history have not had so girlish a notion of reverence; rather, they viewed reverence as the foundation of manly character. From reverence, came their respect for all that denoted the holy and the good: legitimate authority, just laws, virtue and reason—the entire, masculine project of civilization. Reverence for God taught society to bow to kings, husbands and fathers. We remember that God is the ultimate Patriarch; reverence is the fabric of patriarchy.
Once found, and cultivated somewhat, reverence becomes as instinctual to us as breathing. We enter a Church and find our knees bowing and our hands forming the sign of the Cross almost automatically; we hear that someone has died, and instinctively bare our heads to what is above, bowed in acknowledgment of our subjection.
But this instinct may initially elude us, who have been raised in an age of blasphemy. Reverence, the Fathers and Saints teach, is the root of humility; humility removes the obstacles to communion with God, and to receptivity of His operation upon us. The bones of our epoch were knit together in the womb of blasphemy, however, so even the most rank irreverence can fail to register, and irreverence compounds itself. It can become a vicious cycle, and we must conscientiously avoid it.
For example, one of the first elements to a sense of the sacred, is to understand that “sacred” (and “holy,” “hallowed,” etc.) means “set apart.” The temple and its contents are set apart from the world; everything else is profane (from Latin profanus; one meaning of pro is “outside before” and fanum means “the fane,” i.e., the profane is everything before we cross over into the sacred boundary of the temple). We honor the sacred by according it separate styles, or exceptional qualities, of architecture, music, adornment, rites, gestures, etc. Those who say that Jesus would be angry that the Church had great temples, vessels, vestments, art, etc., are not following the way of humility and reverence; they actually advocate desecration by insisting that we routinely assimilate the sacred unto the profane.
So far as your personal spiritual lives and preparation for prayer go, you will want to do such things as the following in order to maintain the “separate” character of the sacred, and to honor it. I may speak in Catholic terms in what follows, but practitioners of other religions will easily understand how the same principles apply in their own traditions.
1. Create a dedicated place in your abode for focused prayer; keep it clean and do not let ordinary clutter intrude on it.
2. We want to pray continually; even so, we will set aside times for more formal prayer (in the dedicated space, above). Make sure these times are truly set apart – don’t squeeze them in or begrudge them. The idea is to consecrate the time and place; once consecrated, we forfeit our claim to them.
3. Try always to use dignified, beautiful, quality (but not necessarily costly) materials in connection with anything sacred (Bibles, prayerbooks, images and statuary, candles/lamps, etc.). Avoid cheap, gawdy, kitschy and sentimental things/materials. Beautiful and evocative things should be used to incite reverence, rather than to create a “sensual experience” centered upon your enjoyment.
4. Use traditional gestures of respect and affection for the sacred (bows, genuflections, prostrations, kisses, special postures for prayer, etc.). Never pass sacred places or objects without a reverent gesture of some kind. Remove hats and/or bow heads if our Lord is named, etc.
5. Strive always to harmonize a sincere, interior sentiment with the outward expression of reverence. Do not make reverent gestures out of mere habit or “rule-following,” and certainly strive not to make them for vanity’s sake.
This is how to make a beginning; reverence will deepen, become natural and instinctual, far beyond anything I could describe in a short list. But this points you in the right direction.
The bottom line: only if a man honors the Good, can he individually and socially pursue virtue and excellence. Let us fear and respect, therefore, that Being which is closer to us than we are to ourselves; wherever He is named or denoted, wherever He is specially called to mind, let heads and hearts be bared, knees be bent and necks be bowed. Let us abhor the queer abomination of blasphemy, and avoid companionship with blasphemers, for blasphemy is the herald of the void. If we begin thus by approaching God with honor, true prayer can occur.
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”
Read More: How One Of King Arthur’s Tales Shows A Vital Masculine Lesson
Thank you, Aurelius. Very useful.
Thanks be to God.
I will say that I wonder if I need to do something to draw the men into it, more. I don’t know if it’s because the subject matter is one, on which most men don’t feel comfortable speaking, or if it’s because I share the Tradition in an apodictic air, but I find many men will comment to say “thanks,” but sometimes little begins in the way of discussion.
Do you, or any other fellas, have any questions? Was anything unclear? Am I doing my job too well, or not well enough?
I think your writings are very clear and precise. I have already
started practicing reverence to sacred edifices and will continue with
all the insights you just gave us.
You’re right that your apodictic style may give you a “I know my shit” aura, that might discourage some of us to start a discussion.
But the simple “thank you” messages you get from me and from others are more than mere flattery and shyness, since you provide to a lot of men here with a view on spirituality still very hard to find anywhere else.
A friend of mine currently living in Russia told me that there you can frequently see Russians practicing this kind of reverence ; stopping in the street to do the sign of the Cross in front of churches and icons .
In France, once “the Churche’s oldest daughter”, people will probably look at you like at some lunatic.
The times are changing though. In my opinion the huge anti sodomic marriage protests from 2012 showed a strong potential for a return of Tradition.
“I have already started practicing reverence to sacred edifices and will continue with all the insights you just gave us. ”
– Monsieur de Charette
Ok, the new definition of “red pill” behavior: bowing to buildings and other inanimate objects… You do what you want, but please convince me how this is Christian or “red pill” behavior. Yes thank you Aurelius, I now have a new appreciation for idols.
The Lord, Who commanded “keep my Sabbaths and reverence my Sanctuary, for I am the Lord,” and Who prescribed that the tablets of the Law and the manna be reverenced in the splendid Ark, and Who slew Uzzah merely for touching this Ark, and Who prescribed the offering of incense and the construction of sacred images for His temple (not to mention the temple itself), and Who commanded the construction of a brazen serpent, that the people be healed by looking upon it…
…shall not be offended if a man bow his head towards the thing which recalls Him to our minds, or to the building in which He is present in a special way.
Thanks for the feedback. I do appreciate it when men comment, even if just to say “thanks,” because it lets me know that I’m providing something helpful. And certainly, I don’t think most of the men here are the type to engage in empty flattery.
I am glad for the time I spent amongst traditional, Russian Orthodox folk. Even amongst traditional Catholics, the spirit of reverence is sometimes very thin; often they make reverences more because “that’s the rule,” and I can tell that they’re more concerned with “doing it right,” than with internalizing the reverence. Of course, Catholics have also been in the belly of the blasphemous beast for 50 years, now. I hope to help them rediscover this sense of reverence, which is so important to worshipping God, and honouring His saints, well.
So I suppose as a Catholic you sacrifice animals, along with burning your incense? You espouse circumcision for the Gentiles? What you are referencing above are the Laws of Moses…Torah…before Jesus.
Thank you for showing again the emphasis your church places on inanimate objects. BTW where is the Ark? Where is the brazen serpent? You must feel lost and incomplete without such objects to include in your “worship.”
Romans 7:6 “But now we have been exempted from The Written Law, and we are dead to that which had controlled us, so that we shall serve from now on in the newness of The Spirit and not in the Old Order Scriptures.”
For anyone else here interested in the philosophy of Christianity, you do not need to pray to dead people, statues, candles, or buildings. John the Baptist certainly did fine without them…and so did Jesus.
For those in the early stages of Christian contemplation, Christianity does not require the barriers that Mr. Moner is promoting. You require no trinkets to approach God. There is no special way or place to sit, no music that must be played. Christianity is completely portable, to the point that if you were stranded on a desert island (or in solitary in prison) He will still be with you.
Again I have to ask: How is Catholicism “red pill?” Everyone here should be asking this as well.
You are rather short on reasoned argument, and rather long on invective.
You know as well as I do, that the Old Law contained both specific rites and ritual laws, and also contained general moral truths. My point was that a sense of respect for holy things and objects is not inherently evil or idolatrous, since God Himself commended such attitudes and actions. This is not tantamount to saying that Christians must perform all the rites and ritual laws of the Old Covenant.
But if you must have New Testament examples, recall that the faithful brought the sick out so that St. Peter’s mere shadow might fall upon them; and also, cloths that had touched St. Paul were brought to the sick amongst the faithful, and they healed them. I don’t imagine they used these holy relics to wipe down their counter-tops, after they had wrought miraculous healings. Also, an angel came to stir the pool at Bethesda, and, along similar lines (though in the Old Testament), such things as washing in the Jordan and touching the relics of St. Elias, brought healing. Even our Lord often chose to work through some physical medium – making mud of His spittle and using it to salve the eye, not to mention instituting the Eucharist and commanding it be done in solemn commemoration of Himself. And St. Paul is clear that many Christians grew sick and died because they approached this Eucharist without due reverence and self-examination. St. James also mentions the priests’ use of oil in connection with prayer to heal the sick.
Furthermore, any student of early Church history soon finds that the early Christian authors all knew of the disciplina arcani, or the oral tradition of the Apostles (which is hinted at in the letters of St. Paul, especially Hebrews and 2 Thessalonians), containing the customs and rites which the Christians absolutely did not reveal publicly. The letters of the New Testament are very public things, and deal primarily with problems of morals or false doctrines showing up in the Churches; they nowhere discuss the Christian customs and rites in detail, making only slight references, here and there, to the ritual acts accompanying the Eucharist, ordination, etc. Already in the letters of Ss. Ignatios, and the writings of early Christians such as Ss. Clement of Alexandria and Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil and Ambrose, etc., we find more information on the ceremonial for these customs and rites, the sign of the cross, the practice of venerating the remains of the martyrs, etc. And the fact is that this is everywhere the same – Africa, Numidia, Rome, Anatolia, Syria, Modern-Day Greece, Dalmatia – we find here the same sacramental rites, nearly identical in structure, the same customs, the sign of the cross, the penitential system, etc., etc., so that it is hard to take a man seriously, if he thinks that the whole Christian world apostatized from the Faith in the exact same way, all by the 3rd century. Reverence for holy places, acts, objects and persons was the universal practice of Apostolic Christianity.
So, the neo-gnostic prejudice against “inanimate objects” and places being used as vessels for the sacred, is just that.
You act as though the faith were based on (our inferences regarding) the Bible, rather than the Bible being a compilation of writings deemed authentic by the Church, which only witness to a limited portion of the Apostolic preaching. That is your fundamental mistake.
Short on reason? You are a fraud. Let’s look at your fundamental mistakes:
Mr.Moner, you wrote:
“the Conciliar Church is a schismatic movement that in no way belongs to the Catholic Church”
“the popes since the time of Paul VI have been antipopes”
“the Catechism of John Paul II is heretical”
“the New Code of Canon Law is invalid”
What you wrote is heresy and schism. You have no authority to speak on anything Catholic and your Bishop must now publicly address your grave errors. You are operating “outside the communion of the church.” This is a very serious sin for any Catholic, and calls for automatic excommunication. I challenge anyone here to prove me wrong using Cannon Law.
Enlighten us “monk” Aurelius Moner: who is your Bishop? The RoK readers deserve a true teaching from someone in AUTHORITY from the Catholic church: you have none. Let’s have your Bishop chime in on your teachings of schism, and apostasy that you are shilling here. Again, you have no authority from the Catholic church.
Although WE don’t have authority to speak on anything Catholic, God does (obviously), and God The Holy Ghost has spoken through The Church Popes through Ex-Catherdra Dogmas (A Dogma is not something The Pope “makes up” as time goes but is just a proclamation of what The Church has always taught since the time of Christ and The Apostles.) And as The Holy Ghost through The Popes has taught that any proclaimed figure-head or authority in The Church who falls into any type of heresy then automatically ipso-facto (by the very fact alone) ceases to be that figure-head or authority. Here’s one reference…
Second Council of Constantinople, 553 A.D. — infallible Source of Dogma
“The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings
anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy.”
You can find more references and quotes to this and A LOT more here…
http://www.immaculata-one.com
Some people merely repeat what The Popes and The Church has taught thus we are not speaking on our own authority but are merely restating what The Church has already taught.
I am probably not truly Catholic yet (I may still be holding onto heresy that I have not abjured from but am still trying and still learning what The Church teaches) and many who claim to be are also probably not (even a lot of traditionalists are not Catholic.) Even though this is the case anyone can repeat what The Church has taught even if they have no official authority to do so much like someone can repeat what their teacher in school has taught by merely being a student.
I have never claimed to have any authority in the Catholic Church.
It is the truth, however, that Catholic doctrine and law automatically excommunicate every public heretic. The Church has defined that there are no “rights” abstracted from objective morality, that the liturgical rites of the Church cannot be changed “into other, new ones” (Trent) that priests cannot be compelled to say Mass with any rite other than that codified by the missal of St. Pius V (Quo Primum), has formally anathematized Modernism, Liberalism, Socialism, Syncretism and false Ecumenism, etc., etc. Most importantly, the Church makes it clear that the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium cannot propose false doctrines or impious and defective rites.
But the conciliar church teaches all these things, promulgates blasphemous and new rites, and issues laws contrary to Divine Law, in an official capacity, in a universal and quotidian matter. Thus, it is not the Church. It is not heresy to say this, nor is it schism. Indeed, to assert the opposite would be schismatic and heretical. St. Robert Bellarmine, and the Church (at Vatican I), taught that all Catholics, including popes, lose their membership in the Church automatically through public heresy. The Church herself teaches that the Church cannot promulgate “other, new rites,” especially if they are contrary to the spirit of Tradition; yet we have new rites for all seven sacraments in the mainstream Church, with the signatures of popes who kiss Korans, deny that the Jews must accept Christ and the Gospel, approve of abstract “rights,” etc., etc. Thus, the heretic is the man who says that these new rites are Catholic rites, or that these habitually impious and heretical men are valid claimants to the throne of St. Peter. There have been many, recognized antipopes in history; the idea that there can be false popes, is not new; it is an admitted fact.
Sorry. I know the matter is complicated, but the definition of “heresy” is not “disapproval by the most powerful people.” It is “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas” (Summa II:II:11:1). The cardinals and hierarchs of the conciliar church recently debated the issues of divorce and homosexuality; these are points of natural law. In other words, it is an open question whether the leaders of the conciliar church still adhere to basic points of reason and natural law… let alone the Catholic Faith. I have a feeling that if I spoke to the average conciliar bishop about the Communicatio Idiomatum, or the difference between condign and congruous merit, or the difference between a natural and gnomic will, they would not even be familiar with the concepts.
So, no; they are not concerned with the points of Catholic doctrine, whose development has completely halted under their tenure; they can barely agree that adulterous ass bandits should be excluded from the most sacred of all rites and actions in the Church. Possibly a few handfuls are committed to the Catholic Faith, at least nominally; others are at most committed to natural religion (and, even then, this is only true of some of them).
May God bless you and confirm you in the pure, orthodox, upright, Catholic and Apostolic Faith.
Take comfort in the knowledge that, so long as one is intending to submit to the Magisterium insofar as he understands it, and is taking pains to understand it, while he may still be in factual error on certain points of belief, he in fact belongs to the Catholic Church (assuming he is baptized and has not been separated from the body by legitimate ecclesiastical decree).
When I pray my rosary, whenever I come to the mystery of the Nativity, I think of how this was the first time that the Virgin was seen by the world, to be the true Mother of God. Being therefore the Mother of the Church and of her public preaching, the Ladder of Heaven, the True Theotokos, the Recapitulation of all the dogmas of Christ and the Exterminatrix of all Heresies, I always pray, when meditating on that Mystery, that she would confirm me in the true, correct and Apostolic Faith, that she would deliver me from any erroneous views I may have, and deepen my faith and charity.
May she do the same for you!
Is it true that the Western Wall is actually part of a Roman fortress, and that the temple is completely gone? Lost forever?
May God bless you, Aurelius Moner. You always provide such thought-provoking and insightful articles here on RoK.
Fiat! And thank you for the kind words.
Aurelius – the links to you blog don’t work..
Ah, dang, I forgot to fix that. You have to take off the last character, I believe.
Yes and while you are at it, please give us the name of your Bishop so that we can verify that you truly belong to a cloister, and so that your Bishop can come here to correct your messages of heresy and schism.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f85c2adc16b01657c0ffc5d82acdc37907692f331eb3b94838507df4b847e274.jpg
What? He is serious?
I’m a Sedevacantist, and a member of the Latin Rite. We have no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction at this point.
I’m not cloistered, either; being a recent convert from the Eastern Orthodox Church, I am living on a family farm and saving money to construct an hermitage. I’ve been very open about all of that in past articles and comments, if you had read them.
Aurelius Moner is a heretic and promotes schism. These are grave sins described by Cannon Law. Here are his claims that he posted in the comments section of his article:
“the Conciliar Church is a schismatic movement that in no way belongs to the Catholic Church” – Mr. Moner
“the popes since the time of Paul VI have been antipopes” – Mr.Moner
“the Catechism of John Paul II is heretical” – Mr.Moner
“the New Code of Canon Law is invalid” – Mr.Moner
These are very serious claims. If any of you that have been following this and are truly Catholic, I would highly recommend you consult with a priest so that you have a better understanding of your faith. What he has written above calls for automatic excommunication according to Cannon Law. He speaks with no authority from the Catholic church, and is either a fraud posing as a monk seeking donations, or is a heretic operating outside the teachings of the Catholic church.
If any of you doubt me, look up the topics of heresy, apostasy, and schism in Cannon Law. And by all means to not donate money to this beggar’s fund without first verifying with his Bishop that he is truly a member of a Diocese.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/420e58d9dba9b8190369e242e9d9c1847d86c2049363933957f2ac243eff3c4a.jpg
You think you is still on StormFront!
“Cannon” law is what totalitarians enforce.
I didn’t want to say anything…
Hear hear. Keep them coming Aurelius Moner. Enlightening stuff.
Excellent article, Aurelius.
Speaking as someone who was a former S. Baptist (and who has moved around according to what was available at my place of residence) reverence or fear of the Lord is one of the things that seems to be sorely missing from US Christians, especially some of the non-denominationals, and non-liturgical Protestants. There is too much of “Jesus is my boyfriend / lover of my soul / my homeboy (grates my nerves even to type those)” in the music and in the atmosphere. And then they wonder why their country is the way it is.
We may be redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, but most Biblical encounters with God or Jesus involved falling at His feet ‘like a dead man’ or some sense of dread and awe. The patriarchs and saints would be aghast at the way modern Christians flippantly address God or approach worship, prayer, and study of the Word.
Lest anyone think I am perfect in this regard, this is really just a recent (1 year or less) revelation, and anything I have said applies to myself.
“There is too much of “Jesus is my boyfriend / lover of my soul / my homeboy (grates my nerves even to type those)” in the music and in the atmosphere.”
This. A million times this. At some point he stopped being “King of Kings” and became “mah homie”. I can’t stand the non-denominational churches for that reason. Between what I call “rockin’ with Jesus” music and their “I’m okay, you’re okay” sermons, I rarely see any conviction from contemporary churches.
An interesting idea for a sermon:
Spend time talking about what it would be like to sit among the great leaders of the world. Play up the fear and awe that you would have if you sat down with your CEO for a performance review, then multiply it for someone who can have you killed for displeasing him.
Then point out how Jesus is the King of Kings, the CEO of all CEOs. He has all that power, plus the power to punish you after you have died.
I imagine that might put the fear of God into some of these people.
Great idea !!
Yeah, I tried not to harp on this too much, because back in the day I railed against this at almost all times. There is so much presumption, people going around and speaking as if they are the living oracles of the Holy Ghost, revealing to mankind the results of their conversations with Jesus over a cup of coffee each morning. I got so sick of it when I was a Protestant, where, I have to say, this was much more common. “God told me to leave my husband,” or “the Spirit told me you should sell your car,” and other outrageous bs.
I remember one morning, during “praise and worship,” before the homily, I looked around. I saw people taking a break from “praise and worship” to sip their travel mugs, check their phones, etc. When I went into an Orthodox Church the first time, I saw people prostrating themselves, bowing, intently focused upon the act of worship and reverence. I found the same, when I finally found some actual Catholics – people kneeling, bowing, genuflecting, women with covered heads, focused intently on the worship, on assisting at it with private prayer, or rapt attention, etc.
These people who casually emphasize that “Jesus and I have a personal relationship,” know not of what they speak; they also like to quote the verse, “perfect love casts out fear,” to insist that they shouldn’t be fearing the Lord, because they really love Him. The assistant pastor at our Baptist church gave a sermon on how “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” His message? “Not to throw knives at people is the ‘beginning of wisdom’ about knives, but you can move on pretty quickly to more practical, daily wisdom about knives. Likewise, we may be afraid of God when we first meet Him, but we should get over this quickly and realize He’s really a great friend to have.”
They use these ideas – “love and friendship with dreamboat Jesus” – as a way to justify their sense that all of their opinions (especially if they were formed while in the immediate vicinity of a badly paraphrased version of the Bible) are somehow guaranteed to be accurate because, you know, they have “a loving friendship” with the Author.
Anybody can say they have a relationship with our Lord; heck, anybody can sincerely feel like they really, really do have such a relationship. Where presumption abounds and holy fear retreats, we know that they are deluding themselves. “If you love Me, you will obey My commandments.” I want to love our Lord, but I confess that I do not, yet, love Him in truth. When I speak to Him these days, I begin by saying “Lord, I am weary of lying that I love Thee; but I want to love Thee; grant me an increase of charity.” If I claim to love our Lord, I prove myself a liar, and the truth is not in me.
When I think of all the saints who have repented for decades, who have “buffeted their bodies and subjected them,” as St. Paul said he did to himself, for Christ’s sake, I grow ever more indignant at those who presume that their benevolent whimsies entitle them to claim what so many, even Apostles, feared to assert of themselves.
What do you make of Rob Bell?
Charlatan. Like the many false prophets before him, he comes “preaching a Jesus we have not preached” (2 Cor 11). It works because the time has come where “people will not endure sound doctrine” (2 Tim 4).
Source: I actually read “Love Wins”
Well, I had never heard of him until you mentioned him.
After spending five minutes learning about the guy, here is my opinion of him:
Homosexual SJW entryist.
But, that’s an opinion formed after only five minutes, so I wouldn’t take it as Gospel.
I was recommended to listen to him by a former pastor of mine. I respect this pastor as a man but whenever I had a difficult question about faith, at the time I was struggling with the Book of Joshua I never really got a satisfactory answer, explanation…
I was curious to what you thought as the contrasts between different forms of Christianity are vast and the message you pass is very different to what I’d received before.
I’m now thirsty for tradition, sound doctrine and a clear understanding of what it means to be Christian.
I’ve listened to a few of his sermons. He certainly appeals to women. I’m no biblical scholar, but he does appear to shoe horn many different ideas into Christianity which defy a basic understanding of scripture.
I’m immersed deeply in the Apostolic Tradition; America is a Protestant nation and, moreover, Modernism has been so rampant for the past couple centuries, that even the Vatican has succumbed to it. So, my view is deeply rooted in what authentic Christianity teaches, but it is markedly different from the common views today, because most Christians today prefer their own ideas. But you’ll find people who substantially or entirely agree with me, in traditional Catholic circles, and amongst old-school Orthodox Christians (especially Russians, Serbians and Romanians).
That’s what I love about the Apostolic Tradition: it is clear, well-developed and broadly attested; it does not leave you the option of doing your own thing, if you want to claim faithfulness to it. And, you don’t have to do your own thing; you can let the Tradition educate you, and lift you up. I have never felt like I was “blindly following” the Tradition; rather, I feel like the Tradition challenges what I thought I believed, and always vindicates itself as truer and wiser than my own views, after I understand it. Then, the Tradition becomes my own view, rather than a “different” view, to which I owe unthinking obedience.
If you have specific questions, feel free to ask me, here or my gmail address (same handle as my disqus name). Of course, I hope to keep sharing the Church’s Holy Tradition, and general philosophical truths, as well, in future articles.
Thank you, I’ll certainly take you up on that offer. I’m researching Apostolic Tradition right now. I’ve not heard of it before, or not registered it in my mind. That’ll give me some intellectual stuff to get my teeth into today.
I come from a protestant background, but for the last year or so Catholicism has drawn my eye. I don’t get the pope, infallibility and head Bishop. Can you explain that to me please?
Ha! Have you got a year?
Seriously, though, here’s the short version (which is still not “short”):
The difference between the Catholic Faith and the Protestant groups, comes down to this: the Catholic Faith teaches that Christianity is about incorporation into a body, a society, founded by Christ upon Himself primarily, and also upon Peter, and upon the other Apostles and Prophets; Protestantism believes that Christianity is a philosophy or system of ideas, by which a man learns to accept Jesus as his personal Savior, while any organization plays a merely supplementary and supportive role to his personal relationship with God. Put briefly: is Christianity a Church, or an idea?
I could say a lot here, by way of criticism or support for these views, but I’ll spare you.
For me, the epiphany came as I tried to sort out the question of authority (i.e., as a Protestant, I knew there were some things in the Bible that sounded “sort of Catholic” – praise for celibacy, more emphasis on Sacraments, obedience to ecclesiastical authorities, implications that perhaps one could fall away from salvation, more emphasis on the involvement of material things in worship and customs, etc. I also knew that Protestants argued amongst themselves about many things – can you fall away? Should you seek “baptism in the Spirit?” Is the Trinity “biblical?” Etc.). I started looking to the earliest Christian writings I could find, outside the Bible, reckoning that the Christians most likely to have known what the Bible meant, and what the Apostles taught, would be the Christians that knew them, or lived in the time right after them. And I did find that they placed much more emphasis on the Church as a living body of Apostolic foundation, governed by men who had succeeded to the Apostles’ places as ambassadors of Christ. I realized that the Church carried on business before the Apostles had finished writing the Scriptures, and for another 300 years after that without any official canon of Scripture.
In other words, I came to see that the Scriptures were Church-based, rather than the Church needing to be Bible-based. Scripture is still inerrant and of great importance, obviously, but I came to see that it was God’s will that His Body continue on Earth, continuing to live and to teach and to sanctify with His own voice and authority. The Scriptures are a record of the life of our Lord, the foundation of the Church, and the beginning of the Apostolic Tradition and ministry; but the Church is the continuation of this divinely-established, Spirit-led, Apostolic authority and Tradition, whereas the Bible is merely the record of its beginning. And, when I went back and read the Bible, I saw how clear this was. Our Lord spoke of building His Church on Peter, gave Peter the mission to shepherd His flock, “deputized” all the Apostles upon ascending to heaven (εντέλλομαι is the Greek word, meaning “give a mission and the authority to execute it), told believers to heed the Church, spoke of the Spirit leading them to all truth, etc., etc. At no point does He hand them a book and say, “here’s the rules; make sure everybody gets a copy, and let them decide for themselves what it means.” He founded an authoritative, organic society upon Himself, and authorized His Apostles to govern, establish and continue it. Indeed, this society was Himself; His Body; divine like Him.
The Scriptures were even opened up to me, and I saw how they always spoke of the Faith in this way. St. Paul never spoke of “accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour,” be he did say “those who are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ,” and constantly spoke of our baptism with Christ as the grounds for being raised up with Him into the new life of the Gospel. He spoke of how Israel was one in the Old Testament, for having been baptized with Moses in the Red Sea and the Pillar of Fire and Cloud, and for having shared the same spiritual food and drink, and of how this was a foreshadowing of the union of the Church now, which is one through Baptism and the Eucharist. He spoke of how those who approached the Eucharist unworthily were falling ill and dying. And I saw how Christ always used Eucharistic terms to describe union with Him, and knowledge of Him; “I am the vine, you are the branches;” “Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, there is no life in you;” or, when He hides Himself from the understanding of the disciples on the road to Emmaus, He reveals Himself to them at the exact moment that they bless their bread – this became a communion chant, in the early Church: “they knew the Lord in the breaking of the bread” (Luke 24:35).
And, of course, this was all confirmed by my readings in the earliest Christian writings; they understood that the Church was the Body of Christ, that salvation came from incorporation into it through Baptism and Confirmation, and was sustained by Confession, by Communion, by the transmission of the Apostolic authority through the ordination of new bishops, and their representatives, the priests, etc., etc.
Once you get all that – that Christianity is a Church, governed by Christ’s own will and authority through the successors to the Apostles, upon whom He founded the Church – the question of the papacy is just a matter of learning Church history. To start with the Bible, it is clear that Peter is singled out as pre-eminent among the Apostles; he is always named first in any list of them, he is the first to confess Christ, he is the only one to whom Christ explicitly gives the keys, he is renamed Petros (“Peter,” “Rocky”) by Christ to be associated with Christ Himself, the Rock, making Christ’s building of the Church upon Himself and upon Peter to be almost the same thing, and, after Peter’s denial, Christ restores him, assures him he has prayed that his faith may not fail, and entrusts His whole flock to him.
From there, we find that, from the very first days of the Church, Christians everywhere did look to Rome as “the place of Peter,” and regarded that Church as succeeding to Peter’s preeminence amongst the Churches; early on the exercise of this authority was somewhat restrained, both because of the intense fervor of the early Faith, and the strength of the Apostolic preaching still freshly delivered, and the fact that, in these early times, theology was best done by thoroughly establishing the ubiquity of the Apostolic preaching through more collegial actions, rather than centralized management. But, it remains clear that everything was already admitted in principle in the first four centuries: Rome’s primacy, Rome’s prerogatives for intervening to resolve difficult situations, Rome’s position as court of final appeal, the necessity of Rome’s approval and decree before theological matters were considered finally resolved, Rome’s right to depose clergy of any jurisdiction, or appoint bishops anywhere in the world with vicarious or legatine status, Rome’s preeminence at General Councils, even to the point of his legates being able to nullify enormous gatherings of bishops from all over the world with a single word (the famous “contradicitur” of the robber synod of Ephesus) and, finally, yes: the belief that a (valid) Roman Pontiff could issue binding decrees on theology and discipline.
As I say, this centralized power was exercised lightly outside of the Western territories in the first millennium, but it was exercised and recognized. There was really no controversy, until the increasing prominence of Constantinople led to ambitions for secondary or co-equal status for that city, founded upon political rather than spiritual considerations. Even still, plenty of Saints, Fathers and patriarchs of Constantinople, along with the Emperors, explicitly confessed the primacy of Rome. Patriarch St. Nikephoros, St. Maximos the Confessor and St. Theodore the Studite (the Stoudion was the great monastery of Constantinople) all defended the rights of Rome, and even encouraged the Emperor to resolve growing disputes by appealing directly to the pope for an authoritative decree. They even admitted that the pope could hold an Ecumenical Council without the involvement of other Patriarchs, if need be, on account of the fact that patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria were at various times unwilling to attend a council where they would surely be condemned. The proceedings of the Councils, especially at Ephesus and Chalcedon, affirmed the primacy of Rome, with St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria acting as the pope’s legate in addition to representing his own patriarchal authority, and affirming that the business of the council was to receive and implement the papal decree concerning Nestorius.
As time went on, the implications of all this were more precisely exposited. It became clear that, if the pope really had this position, it must be recognized that his decrees, when issued ex cathedra for the purpose of teaching and sanctifying the whole Church, had to be infallible and irreformable of themselves. Moreover, there can be no authority to depose a pope, since it is clear that if Ecumenical Councils are authoritative only by his ratification, there can be no Ecumenical Council with authority apart from, and over, the pope.
But it is important not to misunderstand and exaggerate this truth; indeed, misunderstanding it, is at the root of the present crisis. Two common misunderstandings, are 1) the pope is beyond question and the Church is stuck with him no matter what; 2) pushing one of two extremes of infallibility, either assuming that a pope can never be seriously wrong, or imagining that only his ex cathedra statements are binding or important, since the others “can be wrong.”
Regarding the first, the pope is bound by the Truth; he is bound by the Faith delivered by Christ to the Apostles. He has no authority to invent new truths, or to erase old ones. It has always been the teaching of the Church that any person who knowingly deviates from the authoritative teaching of the Church, automatically severs himself from the Church. This includes a pope. The Church has no authority to depose a pope, but all Catholics are bound to avoid and reject any man, including a pope, who deviates from the defined, dogmatic teachings of the Church. This has been confirmed by Saints, Fathers, Doctors Popes and Infallible, Ecumenical Councils of the Church. Any Catholic who tells you that the Church has to wait for an authoritative deposition, before we can know that a man is an heretic if he kisses the Koran, says the Jews are saved without Christ and the New Covenant, destroys the rites and customs of the Church, defends condemned concepts of abstract rights, disavows belief in “a Catholic God,” etc., etc., is a Catholic who does not know the teaching of the Church. We cannot depose a pope; but we can recognize when a man is not the pope, due to his not being a Catholic.
Regarding the second, the pope’s infallibility should not be taken to mean that a pope could never fall into heresy or err; theologians have thought this was improbable, but the teaching of the Church is clear that it could happen. Furthermore, we must not fall into the error of many modern Catholics, who think that, so long as the pope has not defined a doctrine explicitly, it “doesn’t count,” he shouldn’t be judged for it, and we aren’t bound by it. So far as our judgment of the pontiff goes, we are obliged to submit to his authority, unless he commands us contrary to faith or morals. And if he commands us contrary to the faith, because he himself disregards the Magisterium, we are obliged – *obliged* – to regard him as an heretic and a non-Catholic.
Insofar as thinking that we can ignore the modern crisis in the Church by appealing to the fact that the (anti-)popes have done nothing “infallibly,” we must remember the teaching of the Church, summarized so well by Pius XII in Humani Generis:
“Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, on the grounds that, in writing such Letters, the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.”
In other words: a pope’s job is to teach what is already taught by the Church, and as a general rule, papal encyclicals do not engage in speculative theology, but soberly expound upon what is already a settled teaching. If they go so far as to express a deliberated opinion upon a matter previously disputed, we understand that it was their will to communicate that the teaching of the Church excludes that opinion for solid and traditional reasons.
So, to sum up: the Christian Faith is about the Church, the Body of Christ, governed with Christ’s divine authority through the successors to the Apostles, upon whom Christ built the Church. Peter has the preeminence amongst these, and generally can mind his own business – but when there are troubles, he has the right and the duty to be a matrix of unity, and to teach and sanctify the Church by his preeminent authority and prerogatives. The bishops of Rome have succeeded to this place of primacy amongst the Churches, and this has been recognized from the 1st century, onwards, even in the East. When a valid pope is on the throne, he is bound by the Tradition and the Truth just as much as anyone else; the faithful should be eager to receive the Tradition of the Church from all sources – the Fathers, Councils, Doctors, Saints, and the ordinary teaching authority of the pope, the bishops, etc. They are not free to sit in judgment of every opinion of the pope. But, if the pope, or any man, publicly departs from defined dogma, they must refuse to follow him in his errors… and if it becomes clear that he is impudent in his error (i.e., he errs because he doesn’t care what the Magisterium teaches), they must regard him as automatically excommunicated.
The infallibility of the pope under certain, limited circumstances, should not lead us to only care about his teaching when it claims to be authoritative, nor should it lead us to think that the pope must always be right, and that we have a duty to submit to him even when he is clearly an heretic. We will practice the golden mean of virtue: neither erring on the extreme of Protestantism, where we trust our own opinion all the time, nor erring on the side of slavish obedience to authority when that authority transgresses its own limits. The pope is limited to the Holy Tradition, and bound by the defined doctrine of the Church. When new disputes arise over the meaning of the Tradition, which have not already been answered by the Church’s authoritative teaching, we have faith that the process of the Church will produce correct doctrine; but where men have departed from what the Church already defined, we reject those men as apostates and do not trust them to lead us into anything but error. That goes equally for men who claim to be popes, but who do not walk in the Tradition as it has been handed down from the beginning.
I hope that makes it somewhat clear. To read some statements of the Fathers through the centuries on this topic, go to this youtube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/SetonsH4ll/videos
Thank you Aurelius. Having read through that the line of argument now appears clearer. I’ll have a re-read and see if I can unpack any points, questions or arguments from it for later discussions.
This detail is greatly appreciated.
You’re welcome; I’m sorry for the length, but am glad if it helped to give clarity on any point. Feel free to ask any further questions.
Also related: where in the Scriptures does our Lord speak as a “buddy?” Even when He is being kind, He is lordly. Nowhere in the Bible does our Lord say, “Hey you guys, wazzup buddies? Spend some time in the Word with me; we’ll get a cup of java and just chit-chat.”
You are correct to point out that even the Apostles, both before and after acquiring an intimate conversation with our Lord, are often falling before Him in awe, are moved to tears by His reproaches, hear Him threaten to “vomit out of (His) mouth” the tepid Christians that irritate Him, etc. Our Lord does want to establish a profound intimacy with the souls of the faithful; the intensity and profundity of that intimacy, is itself the greatest censure of the easy-come, easy-go “buddy Jesus” mentality.
Hey Aurelius Moner, Would you mind maybe rewording what you said here, I just had a hard time understanding the meaning. Are you saying that wanton flailing of the body in praise of Jesus is frowned upon or it is to be respected?
I’m not saying either of those things.
I’m saying that, even when our Lord is emphasizing His intimacy, friendship or love with the souls of the faithful, He never hints that the relationship is therefore a casual one.
I am both blessed and cursed to have had a “like a dead man” encounter with the Lord. Blessed, because I now know with my body and soul that Christ is Lord, but cursed as the Apostle Thomas by my earlier doubt.
We worship a God who is mighty in power, the Lord of Hosts. While he has bestowed on us the greatest mercy and grace in Christ, which allows us to be called co-heirs with Christ, we must never forget who and what our Father truly is.
I love Him, and I fear Him, because were it not for his unending love I would be subject to the full might of His wrath.
Satan’s deception has filled the church of America. Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyers, Hillsong United, etc are all false prophets and spread the prosperity doctrine. They love this “non judgement” love gospel but forget what true Love of G*d is. When you see Kanye (former catholic), Justin beiber, and other sh*t eaters (literally) join their congregation, you know something is up. And I can’t let the good brother off the hook just yet; the Catholic Church has been a front for the Masons/NWO agendists and satanists, especially with the current pope. But I know brother Moner is sincere in his dedication to Yeshua; but I don’t agree with the doctrine and his adherence to his physical religious institution.
Even using a work such as The Book of Common Prayer for Anglicans need not turn into a rote exercise. Some of the old English words are beautiful but for spontaneity and focusing the mind improvise and use more modern synonyms.
I have a 1916 edition of the Book of Common Prayer, leather-bound, gold binding, all in Latin. It’s handy for me, sometimes, because I use the Sarum Rite frequently for the recitation of the Office and the praying of the Mass texts when I cannot assist at the Mass. It retains all of the Sarum collect prayers in their ancient order, and the (Mass) lectionary too, for the most part. It also has a bunch of goodies, like the Litany of Saints and assorted other prayers of ancient English pedigree.
A local used-book store, obviously not really knowing what it was, sold it to me for ten dollars.
The following link points to the prayers of the early Protestants. They are a bit on the long side, but even a brief reading reflects the Spirit in which they were written.
And they would pray these daily.
http://www.indymissionary.com/library/GenevaBiblePrayers.pdf
I find it difficult to obtain the right frame of mind to pray often.
Instead, I listen to religious music as it helps, like Bruckner’s wonderful locus iste which is beautiful (I think).
I currently go to a church that plays more modern songs, but when of the classic hymns are played, it hits deep.
Yeah, when I was a Protestant, I found an old hymnal in the orchestra’s rehearsal room one evening. I started playing some of the hymns on the piano – “There is a Fount on Calvary,” “Be Thou my vision,” “O Come, Emmanuel,” etc. Everyone over forty came alive, got these great smiles on their faces, started singing spontaneously wherever they were. I realized that, twenty years later, playing “Celebrate Jesus” on the piano would probably provoke eye-rolls and projectiles.
Why did so many Catholics allow apostates to destroy their rites, temples, sacred music, etc? Why did so many Protestants abandon their most moving and doctrinally rich hymns?
I can only conclude that this is the appointed time. “Adversarius vester sicut leo rugiens circuit, quarens quem devoret; cui resistite fortes in fide.”
Tu autem, Domine…
Yes, the Great Outdoors and Classical Music, both did much to prepare my own soul for spiritual impressions.
Contrarily, I think the greatest obstacle to conversion – which is why “they” deliberately saturate our culture in it – is vulgarity, noise, isolation from natural behavior, rhythms and beauties.
When I was a teen, my view of Christianity was that there were two types: disapproving old ladies; and earnest young men strumming guitars.
Then I discovered the beauty and richness and depth of the Catholic Church.
Benedicamus Domino!
It has been said that you will know a man by his fruits.
Thank you for Everything Brother Aurelius. You have shown me the right path.
Thanks be to God. In the end, my life will probably serve merely as a warning to others.
nice article
Who needs prayer when you’ve got Kratom?
Kratom is the answer to your prayers, o ye of little faith.
We can put the childish things in their place at least in this articles’ commentary section.
learned a lot from this. thanks
“The bones of our epoch were knit together in the womb of blasphemy”
Just what I was thinking
Is there any set guidelines to what constitutes a prayer in terms of words?
I only know a couple of the major ones…..but in theory can a prayer you can say most anything?
Sure. The fundamental (and best) prayer, is simply the contemplative gaze, wordless.
I plan on getting into rote prayers next, and then the prayer of quiet, and finally contemplation and perfection, the stages of the interior life, etc.
Guidelines for prayer? You won’t find it in the Catholic Catechism, but I think the Bible is a pretty good authority (for Christians): Matthew 6:9-13
You fuckin cuck
Mark C, on your Disqus profile you wrote:
“Brother, your words are light in the midst of confusion and darkness. I am Catholic and this strengthens my faith”
Since you possibly represent the Catholic side, maybe you can you answer this:
How is the Catholic Church “red pill?”
Aurelius Boner is not a personal insult? The man teaches men how to show reverence to God and you insult him? He may have patience and no time for insults, but I’ll call a fuckin cuck when I see one
Actually, cuck is unfair. He’s an enemy, not a traitor, despite his half-hearted pretense of sola scriptura babble.
Ask the Teutonic Knights, perhaps.
Your comment makes me wonder if you have in fact ever read the Catechism, since it has a great deal to say about prayer. You might disagree with those guidelines, but they are offered in that document.
~ Catechism of the Catholic Church
Christ Himself gave us a model prayer in “The Lord’s Prayer”. If you seek words, these are right, good, and salutary.
Generally speaking, anything spoken to the Lord, in the name of Christ Jesus and by the power of the Holy Spirit, is a good and true prayer. As the Holy Spirit gives us words to speak to one another, so too does the Spirit give us prayers to pray.
And, if all else fails, we know from Romans 8 that the Spirit will make prayers for us, a groaning within the spirit that cannot be uttered. This is what Brother Aurelius Moner refers to in his response about the “fundamental (and best) prayer”.
I’m too red pilled to believe this bullshit. I understand everything you said in this article. I’m from Poland, a catholic country. My grandfather was a priest. My aunt is hardcore believer. I lost faith in god completely, though. I remember when I was lied about Santa Claus and couldn’t believe when I realized that my parents were buying me presents under christmas tree. I felt cheated, lied to. Immediately I started questioning things about faith when I was 10. I still felt strong faith till 16 maybe. I realized that god is really dead, same conclusion as Nietzsche. I don’t believe in goodness of people in this world. It doesn’t exist. Profit or fuck off and that’s how it is. Otherwise you’re blue pilled. Why would god leave us for eternity because of fucking Adam and Eve taking some apple. Such an immaturity. If he left us and If he exists then I tell him straight to fuck off and not want us to come back to him. Why would he blame this on us. Yes exactly, the question is WHY ME? There are so many contradictions. god is an illusion. You better leave him to find strength, enjoy living on earth and building your empire (family, local city, business, country) and experience whatever you can. Forget about god. It’s lunatic dreaming and talking senseless void. I don’t know how would anybody be so cruel to tell somebody struggling in life about god. That is the biggest sin. Lies, lies, lies!!! Prove it to me he exists Aurelius, prove goodness of people. Faith in god and Christianity is full of contradictions. Believe in yourself, be better everyday, life is game and god would be a sadistic fuck to watch all of it. Ohh and these lies that he loves you, damn it. Stop it please. I don’t see any logic in this wishful thinking. I might sound full of hate but I’m not. I’m deeply disappointed with these lies. It doesn’t work for me personally. If it is for you then good for you 😉
Get over Santa Claus.
Haha I did. Still God and other woo woo shit doesn’t exist 😉
Shit exists.
And today’s Manosphere Oscar, goes to…ta-na-na-na ! Mr. Maaaark Foooooooox !
Read rudolf steiner
Well, I won’t try to prove the goodness of people to you, as that’s rather the point of the whole Adam and Eve story, original sin, etc.
I will tell you this: I was a dedicated atheist for many years. I’m not a stupid or uneducated man, and after reading the thoughts of great men from every epoch of Western Civilization, I find the Catholic Faith to be the most believable thing on earth.
If you are seriously interested in discovering how it can be believable, I’m willing to help with that. But one has to be willing to consider the other side. I have gone from atheist, to Protestant, to Orthodox, to Catholic. I don’t attribute this to frivolity, but to my willingness to hear out the other side. Are you really willing? I do not think the quest for the truth, the willingness to learn, should ever be set aside.
Incidentally, I also remember becoming an atheist shortly after surmising that Santa couldn’t be real. I was eight. I went to my dad and said, “Santa isn’t real, is he? And don’t lie to me because you think I’m a kid and I’m supposed to believe it.” My dad, also an atheist, laughed, and told me that I was right: Santa did not exist. I often think “Santa” has been one of the devil’s great coups. The Tooth Fairy, too. I long ago decided I would not raise my kids with stories about Santa and the Tooth Fairy. I’m a monk, so it’s moot, now; but my brother made the same choice, and none of his four kids have so much as heard of him.
But God is another thing altogether, and if I could say one thing to you, it would be to remember the Church’s insistence on “apophatic” theology to balance the “kataphatic” theology. I.e., many of the things we say about God can only be accurate to an extent, and have to be unsaid, or otherwise qualified. Many of the objections you raise, are the result of over-simplifying matters, or of not being able to see how there may be deeper truths behind the superficially “unjust” or offensive ideas you cite. You have to let go of the spirit of easy criticism, and ask: “Well, if I were to give this the benefit of the doubt, how might it be true? What truths might it be sharing, if I were able to set aside my rash and immediate criticisms?”
I used to think along similar lines, but then I had some weird experiences – experiences which even reading a bunch of Nietzsche can’t seem to shake.
Can you tell us more about these experiences?
Well, I wont comment of my own, but religious experiences are quite common and can be caused by all kinds of stuff. Here is a very dramatic and colorful example: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/notable/howard-storm.html
Thanks, just understood a little better the alchemical wedding of Christian rosencreutz. Where the guy was punished for seeing the sleeping venus. was a reference to the mythology of diane. And perhaps flying to high. Icarus getting cast down.
excellent after re-read
Thank you.
Excellent article. Shows a way
Yes shows a well beaten path to the blue pill.
Thanks you Aurelius. A perfect birthday present!
Ad multos annos!
Happy birthday, man !
Thank you, sir! The uneventful 31
Great article
This is honestly the dumbest thing I have ever read. I dont know why I took the valuable minutes to peruse this site. Your so-called ‘movement’ is doomed because of its irrational assumptions and horrible logic. Jesus died a long time ago, retards. Get with the facts and join the winning party, idiots.
you make some good points. i thought what you said over, and i’m never going to mass again. thanks for changing my life, penis-webster.
Troll? or another sock? The world wonders.
Ah, yes, atheism. Father of feminism, socialism, and consumerism. Forty million dead under Stalin, untold millions more under Mao. #winning
” Forty million dead under Stalin” I am anti-communism myself, but those numbers are ridiculous. I thought that a smart and intelligent person like you wouldn’t buy in to this “Stalin killed 40 million” bullshit.
Can anyone challenge this guy with some documented evidence? What I know and I know only from mouthed words of my fellow country men is that Stalin did not machine-gun kill Ukrainians and Bassarabian people, but applied a very insightful typical jewish-soviet like strategy of cutting the native people’s capacity to produce food by sending out troops to confiscate food, cattle & machinery. This strategy not only diminished the number of people inhabiting the aforementioned regions but created – the first documented cases of CANIBALISM in Eastern Europe ! What country did you grew up in ?
He opened a doorway to fucking hell for those people. Imagine you would have the fear of getting fucking killed and eaten ! If you knew at least a little about Stalin you would know 3 things:
1. He was Hebrew
2. He not only killed millions but destroyed entire nations.
3. Fuck you !
Check the internet for CANIBALISM in UKRAINE & BASSARABIA !
Possibly as low as 20 million, but 40 million is not unreasonable for the Bolsheviks total. I wouldn’t give Trotsky and Lenin a pass, they killed their millions too. “The Black Book of Communism” (not sure if links are allowed here, but I’ll give it a shot).
http://www.amazon.com/The-Black-Book-Communism-Repression/dp/0674076087
I hate to point this out, but you may also have an irrational assumption and “horrible logic,” here. I mean, hey! Lots of dumb ideas catch on and meet with great success; you could even argue that some of the most popular movements have been based on very foolish ideas. For example, I may be able to surmise your opinion of Catholicism, yet that movement was hardly doomed – you could say there’s never been a more successful movement in all of world history. I imagine even you would acquiesce to this example, no?
So, granting arguendo that “our movement” has irrational assumptions and “horrible logic:” don’t count us out for all that! We may really be on to something, here.
If you have further irrational assumptions and horrible logic, don’t be shy; I’ve been told I have a knack for such things.
Your approach seems more than a little similar to Mr. Boner’s. I think the obvious exultation in Christ’s death is a little too obvious, though. Perhaps you should call yourself “Yeshua” Penis-Webster. Just trying to help.
I’m enjoying your articles as an opportunity to deepen my faith
Thank you brother Aurelius. A long time ago I was left for dead in the middle of a desert, and even since proclaiming to God out in the middle of nowhere that if I made it out of here I would find the love in faith and in my fellow man, I have still failed. I escaped the desert with my life and a few scars, but memories as clear as day never go away. The veil of the world’s darkness has been lifted and I can see the enemy, but my own constitution fails, especially now that I’m in the process of finding a woman to bear my children.
I want to suggest that you write an article for those of us struggling to accept our faith, our beliefs, and a way to open our mind from the pilfered culture around us to the real and true path that has been there since the beginning. I know that at least myself and a few other strugglers would greatly appreciate it. I try to become closer to God but I’m just a sinner like everyone else. In these times I have to adopt the alpha strategy, use girls for pleasure, go after money to secure myself financially, ignore the hardships of others when I want to step in and help, because I know that for every one of us who makes it somewhere in life and is not held back we can do more to return our world to a proper balance.
I would always choose the lesser of two evils, but someday I would like to avoid all evil altogether. I pray to Jesus but my struggle with a bad addiction still kicks my ass, even after my incident in the desert.
Even if you can’t write an article on this issue, even feedback or suggestions on how those of us who struggle to truly step into the light can come in, yet retain the patriarchal persona of what a man should be: dominant, unyielding, emotionally stable, and not lacking in self-control.
Yes, I’ve been thinking I may need to start at the beginning, as you say, and write an article defending the consistency of the Faith with reason, showing how a grown man can hold it. I think I may be losing some of the men by assuming we can just jump in with basic concepts of virtue and spirituality.
You are also right to realize that we need to break completely with all inherent evils; we cannot carve out a spot for a certain sin, and say: “I’m going to let this slide, for a while.” Yet, at the same time, I say that with sympathy for the struggle. The struggle is itself the gift.
I will tell you plainly the essence of the spiritual life, and how “phase one” goes. A man must turn to God and say, “I wish to be as You have made me, and I am willing to pay any price You demand, in order to attain unto this.” This is the essence of repentance, of real conversion: the resolve to change and to endure whatever we must to effect this change. Usually, the first phase proceeds more or less pleasantly for a while, as God gives the soul certain consolations and graces that encourage it to draw near to Him and put down some roots in the spiritual life.
But, it always conspires to bring us, through numberless failures, to the realization that our nature truly is weak, and cannot walk consistently even in natural virtue, let alone supernatural virtue, without the divine assistance. We thought we were ready to deny ourselves and follow Him, but we didn’t realize how much even of our “self-denial,” was really the activity of the self. We didn’t realize how much of our “resolve” to repent and change, was the action of the self, confident in its own ability to change itself.
This brings us to a point where we are ready to contemplate what true death to self may mean, and what true surrender to divine providence and grace may mean. The next phase begins, when we are ready to cease acting of ourselves, and to make a real holocaust of the self; we will find that this reveals and quickens the self in a way we could not have surmised, before, and ushers it into a new kind of freedom.
But we need to be banged around quite a bit before we get there, usually. I will consider what you’ve said, and think about if, how and when to write an article addressing some of your points.
Thank you for answering my fellow reader ! Many thanks for bringing God in the manosphere. He always was here, but your article is needed to point out His presence.
Well, thank God. Thank Roosh, too; he has obviously made the decision to include it, and should get credit for that. I get a lot of grief to my private mail, and I hear on other blogs, that people think he (and manosphere types) are degenerates.
What I found, was that manosphere types were becoming heretics from the modern world (i.e., from Feminism and the cultural revolution that produced it), and I see that many men, once that first fissure opens, go on to knock down the whole dam.
Our Lord, when He came, upbraided the Pharisees and religious establishment, which had set aside a sincere observance of their Faith in order to gain the favor of men. He went and ate in the homes of harlots and other sinners, because these people had a sense of dissatisfaction with life as they found it, and had simply lost their way. They were not half so malicious as the Pharisees, scribes and temple authorities. My observation, is that manosphere men are often very aware of how depressing and immoral the situation is. They wish women were better, that love and romance was better. But, they are stuck with the situation they have. If a man is determined to stay in that hog wallow forever, well, I guess I don’t have much sympathy.
But my experience thus far, has been that men are searching for something better, are interested in self-improvement, and are also willing to try to change the culture, if there is any hope of success. I’m not ashamed to be a part of that, even if some others think I shouldn’t be here. My belief is that, in the end, many men who are hedonists and possibly even atheists today, will make better men tomorrow, than we’ve had in an hundred years.
(I even think the revival of the Church will come from these men; who knows, maybe in ten years we’ll be marching on the Vatican to throw out the heretics and restore the Catholic hierarchy, the old-fashioned way: by the power of the sword!)
“What I found, was that manosphere types were becoming heretics from the modern world (i.e., from Feminism and the cultural revolution that produced it), and I see that many men, once that first fissure opens, go on to knock down the whole dam.”
This.
Also, perhaps you’re being a little too patient and forgiving with the Pharisee on this thread.
I can empathise with your struggles. I face similar issues in faith.
Another excellent article by Brother Aurelius. This one was particularly important to me, as I have long had doubts about whether or not my prayers, in the manner which I have traditionally done them, are meaningful to God. I will definitely take these tips to heart in my future prayers.
Which Bible do Catholics use? I recently bought an Orthodox study bible to learn more about the orthodox faith and it says that it is the New King James Bible version.
I tried to look up on youtube to see the difference between bibles and came across a man named Pastor Steven Anderson who’s an Independent Baptist who only uses the King James Bible.
He made a convincing movie about just how much all the new modern day translations of the Bible openly change some verses in the bible and sometimes outright leaves some verses out of it. I confirmed this by getting out my New International Version bible my grandmother gave me when i was 5 and the NKJV I have now and noticed a verse where and apostle takes someone to be baptised is completely taken out in the NIV.
Could I hear your thoughts on why all these changes are made? do you have any opinions on the King James Bible?
There have been many generations of Scriptural Translations. Loosely speaking, we have gone from the original languages (Hebrew Tanakh and the Greek compiled letters) through the Latin Vulgate, and into modern translations.
The best Scriptures to read (in English) are word-for-word translations like the KJV, ESV, etc. Interlinear translations are equally valuable, because these convey the direct translation of the original words in their original orders. If you go online, you will see that there are sites that link every word of the KJV to the Strong’s Concordance, showing what the original word meant and how it is used throughout the whole of Scripture.
The dangers of the more “modern” translations (including the NKJV) are:
– They are based neither on the majority text (based on the whole set of compiled Greek sources) or the “Textus Receptus” (compiled by Erasmus out of the Greek sources available centuries ago), but potentially heretical Egyptian texts traced back to the time and place of the Gnostics
– They are either “thought for thought” or paraphrasing translations. While the writers claim to attempt to maintain the spirit of the original text, they often taint it with their own interpretations.
Personally, I keep the KJV on hand at all times. This is the most easily referenced to the original text, and thus most reliable English translation currently available. It’s also free of copyright concerns, so it’s cheap and easy to get hold of.
Thank you for your input, I’ve decided to return my copy of the Orthodox Study Bible since it’s NKJV and buy a KJV or a Douay-Rheims version if I can get a hold of it
Also, as a side note, the Catholic Church usually employs Bibles containing the Apocrypha. These works are not divinely inspired (by any standard), but might be considered worthy of study.
Variant Bibles containing these additional books are slightly harder to find, but still readily available. For best results, use one that places them in their own section (the KJV usually places them between the Old and New Testaments).
The most popular Catholic Bible is the Douay-Rheims version. I have heard that the Challoner Revision (far and away the most commonly available version of the Douay-Rheims) is worse than the original. I am lucky enough to know Greek and Latin, so I have not spent enough time in these English versions to see how they differ; I just read the original texts. I will give you more information than you want, probably; but once you understand all that follows, you’ll be in good shape.
Overview of the Original Texts for modern Bibles:
1) The Old Testament is originally in Hebrew
2) The New Testament is originally in Greek.
3) The “apocrypha,” are Old Testament books for which we do not have Hebrew originals (only Aramaic, I believe). Some Christians regarded the apocrypha as inspired (in the original texts), some viewed them merely as important historical books free from any false teaching, but not necessarily directly inspired. In any case, they were always respected and used by Christians in one way or another.
4) The “Septuagint” is a translation of the Old Testament (and apocrypha) into Greek, made before the time of Christ. The New Testament quotes the Septuagint regularly, and so the early Christians, and the Greeks to this day, have used the Septuagint version of the Old Testament since apostolic times. The Church considers the Septuagint to be a miraculous translation, free from error.
5) The “Vulgate” is a translation of the Old and New Testaments (and apocrypha) into Latin, made by Saint Jerome. Saint Jerome knew Hebrew, so he translated the Old Testament with reference to ancient Hebrew manuscripts, and the Septuagint (Greek) version. The constant use of the Vulgate in the Church, amounts to an approbation of the Vulgate as free from all error; this status was made explicit in later times.
6) 1) At the 1st-century council of Jamnia, Jews edited their scriptural texts in an anti-Christian direction. Also at this time, the knowledge of Hebrew was waning amongst the Jews (who spoke Aramaic), and their Hebrew texts were edited with markings to assist in the pronunciation and interpretation of the text. From this, arose the “Masoretic Text” of the Hebrew Bible.
Now, you can begin to understand something about modern bibles. Here goes.
The Church has always used the Septuagint Old Testament and Greek New Testament (in the East) and Vulgate (in the West). Holy Tradition guarantees these versions are free from error; the constant usage of the Church renders them venerable.
When the Protestant revolution began, there was a need to find some source of legitimacy other than the Church; naturally, they looked to the Bible (even though it was the Church that decreed what the Bible was). There was also a desire to undermine the authority of the Church, by implying that the Protestants could come up with a “better” Bible.
This led to the rejection of the Apocrypha (and almost, in Luther’s case, the near-rejection of other books like James). Protestants also returned to the Hebrew text as the standard for the Old Testament, rather than the Church’s Septuagint and Vulgate translations, reasoning that the Hebrew was the language of the original and therefore “older” (even though their Hebrew text was actually much, much, much younger than the Church’s texts). As time went on, textual criticism also led to attempts to refine and reconstruct the “original” arrangement of the Greek New Testament.
At the time of the Reformation, the most common readings of the Greek Church’s scriptural texts were used to make an edition of the New Testament, called the “Textus Receptus” (“Received Text”), also sometimes called the “Byzantine Majority Text.” This remains the base text for traditional groups (the Church, and the Eastern Orthodox). The Protestants naturally desire to differentiate themselves as much as possible from the Church, so they gravitated towards the Masoretic (Hebrew) text, rejection of the Apocrypha, and a Greek New Testament based on certain editorial preferences, notably a preference for older manuscripts (rather than majority readings) and, if we’re honest, a desire to move away from a traditional text whenever a sufficient, scholarly pretext arises!
There are a few problems with this approach. First, the oldest version of the Masoretic text is only 1000 years old, and was in Russia. St. Jerome was working with Hebrew manuscripts from the holy land that were far older, and also with the Septuagint, whose Hebrew original was a further several centuries older. And in fact, when we found the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Church’s traditional usages were overwhelmingly vindicated. Similarly, simply thinking that an older reading must always be more correct than a different, later one, especially if the later one is present in many more manuscripts, is not always a good assumption.
Just in case it’s not clear: there is no, one “book” or codex, from which the Bible is translated. Rather, there are many, many, many old copies of the Bible, in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Aramaic, etc., texts. The vast majority of the text is the same across all these many copies, but every now and then one version may have something slightly different here and there. An important factor in translating the Bible, therefore, is comparing them and deciding what to do when they disagree.
The Church teaches that the Bible as originally given, is Divinely Inspired; but we may never know the exact, precise text of the Bible, as it was delivered. For the Church, her divine foundation by Christ makes her to be “the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth” (1 Timothy 3:15), and the Church carried on for 400 years before she officially defined which texts are in the Bible. Where Protestants think the Church should do everything based on the Bible, the Church points out that the Bible is itself based on the Church. The Church believes that the Church’s traditional text of the Bible is at least going to be free from error, even if it is not the exact text as the prophet or apostle wrote it. Thus, for the Church, the Septuagint, the Vulgate and the “textus receptus” of the Greek New Testament, are held to be entirely trustworthy and free from error.
Because the Protestants do not believe that the Church is protected from error in this way, they view the text of the Bible as a more or less scientific question, to be based upon their best guesses by comparing manuscripts and choosing the more probable variations. This means the standard Protestant textual base is being tweaked continually, as information and opinions change.
So, what this means:
The King James version was made by Protestants, but almost 400 years ago. So its Greek New Testament is more or less the Church’s Greek New Testament: the textus receptus.
Later, English translations of the Bible (like your NIV), are not so much “taking verses out of the Bible,” as they are choosing to go with more recent opinions about what really belongs in the Bible in the first place. They will throw out some verses because scholars have come to believe that they are interpolations, or bad readings, etc.
Many Protestant groups have little understanding of the text of the Bible; many “King James only” groups, are simply based on an uninformed assumption that the older, King James Bible is somehow “the original” Bible, and that any changes must mean they are “changing” the Bible. But the King James is just one of many translations into English, and is in no sense the “real” or “first” Bible.
Any translation will reflect the assumptions of the translator, of course. One of the things that got me to quit reading my NIV, was to realize how they carefully avoid translating the word παράδοσις (“tradition”) in a positive light, any time it appears in the New Testament (even going so far as to deliberately swap nouns and verbs in one verse, to avoid having to admit that St. Paul praises tradition as a good thing in many places).
In conclusion, my opinion:
1) It is best to learn Greek and Latin, and to read a Textus Receptus edition of the Greek New Testament, and the Latin Vulgate Bible.
2) Failing that, the (original) Douay Rheims Bible is the best in English.
3) Failing that (because the original Douay Rheims is in an archaic form of early modern English, and some people may have trouble with it), the NASB is a good, literal rendition of the New Testament into modern English. For the Old Testament, you will want to find an English Septuagint. There aren’t any great versions, but here is a common one:
http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/
The KJV was initially printed with an Apocrypha, and you can still find that around. I don’t recommend the NRSV translation, but this Bible has the most complete collection of Apocryphal books in English, including variants of the Latin, Greek and Slavonic apocryphal traditions:
http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-containing-Testaments-Deuterocanonical/dp/0195283309/ref=sr_1_19?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453581690&sr=1-19&keywords=nrsv+apocrypha
The Bible I bought my brother, for his family, since it has the Latin and English:
http://www.amazon.com/Douay-Rheims-Clementina-Vulgata-English-Latin/dp/1905574444/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453581842&sr=1-5&keywords=douay+rheims
Thank you for your response, I will look into obtaining a Douay Rheims and KJV bible since I cannot honestly see myself learning Latin and Greek.
I am still on the fence about joining the Catholic faith due to its past (Indulgences etc) and what the pope has been saying lately. By that I mean he’s said “We shouldn’t try to convert Jews” even though if I understand it correctly they are no longer gods chosen but apart of the synagogue of satan … apologising for muslims when they riot over supposed blasphemies against Muhammed (he said something along the lines of If someone said something bad about my mother I’d want to punch them in the face?) and telling America and Western Europe to take in loads of illegal immigrants and Syrian Rapeugees with no thought into the consequences to the native populations by allowing this and the damage these bastards do.
I hear the pope is a Jesuit? I dont know the consequences of that but the Catholic church i live near says it’s Jesuit and if that means they’re values is similar to the Socialist ideology being pushed by the pope I am going to continue to look elsewhere for a church to join.
Glad to see that you have looked into this yourself, and are quickly finding what the Catholic church really wants for the rest of us. This is all about control. The “vicar of Christ” knows what is best for you. Stop questioning, stop reading the Bible, and just accept the inevitable.
A quick Red Pill video about the man Mr.Moner and a billion other lost sheep bow down to:
If any part of this video is true, ask yourself how you can support this and be Red Pill? Is this really want you want to associate with?
I was raised Atheist, became a Protestant (Southern Baptist), joined the Orthodox Church and, after learning enough Greek and Latin to really read some of the Church Fathers, finally became a Catholic. After 20 years of non-stop historical, philosophical and theological study, I believe the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ upon the Apostles, and that she has the true Faith.
But I’ll tell you the truth: the laws and doctrines of the Catholic Church herself, tell us that the institution operating out of Rome since the 60s, is not the Catholic Church. Francis is an heretic, and is not a member of the Catholic Church. No man claiming to be the pope since the time of John XXIII, has been the pope.
I know, that sounds insane to somebody who knows little of the doctrines, traditions and laws of the Church. And, obviously, it could potentially take hours and hours to explain the situation fully. It took me all of last year to understand it. I may get around to an article on the topic during the time of Lent. The thing that most angers me in the modern world, is the apostasy now obscuring the Church, hiding Her from almost any honest man that looks for Her. Do not let the distortions of deliberate liars deflect you from the Faith; rather, come to the Church, and know that men like Francis are not to be counted amongst Her members.
Many bad men are counted amongst the members of the Church. Being “bad” does not put one out of the Church. Holding the Apostolic Faith and being baptized, make one to be a member of the Church (assuming one has not been excommunicated by legitimate authority for a grave sin); that is the official, defined doctrine, not my opinion. Francis and the many men like him, who consciously reject the Apostolic Tradition, are therefore not members of the Church; they are entryists. To be a Catholic, is to disagree with Francis on many important points, not to agree with him.
One of the things that is stopping me from moving towards the Catholic Church is the current pope and some of the pronoucements that come out of the Vatican.
From the Anglican side, I’m attacted to Anglo-Catholicism, but it is, as far as I can see, a shrinking minority in that church which is mostly an odd combination of happy-clappy evangelicals and quasi-atheistic socialists.
Well, that was the point of my comment, above; don’t let Francis stop you from becoming a Catholic, because Francis himself is not a Catholic. He is not a member of the Catholic Church, and therefore he is no pope. Twice the “curia” under Francis has issued very boldly and expressly heretical documents (one of them penned by Francis himself, an apostolic exhortation of his); and certainly the savour of heresy hangs upon nearly everything the man does and says. By the laws and doctrines of the Catholic Church, the man cannot be even a member of the Church, let alone her head.
Look for a (sane) Sedevacantist chapel near you:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/locations/
Or, in a pinch, try the SSPX:
http://sspx.org/en/community/priories
No, men loike him and the abuses Priests have commited on children in the past is what is making me so sceptical. I feel this is going to be a long journey to find a church that isn’t corrupted by liberal new age bullshit
Thank you again for the thoughtful reply. I’ve decided to return my Orthodox study bible since it’s NKJV and either get a Douay-Rheims version or KJV, should I get a DR version that wasn’t revised by Challoner or have I mistaken what you said? . Finding a SSPX or a (sane?)Sedevacantist church may be more tricky because of where I live.
I have heard from people before that the Vatican II wasn’t the catholic church but I never looked into it, I probably won’t for a while as I already have alot on my To Read list.
Sure, I understand. When and if you do get around to it, I’ll recommend two books to you.
http://www.amazon.com/Catechism-Crisis-Church-Matthias-Gaudron/dp/1892331799/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0963903217?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=od_aui_detailpages00
The first is shorter and simpler to read; the latter is longer, harder to read, and penetrating in its analysis. Both deal with the crisis originating at Vatican II.
As to the Douay-Rheims, I know Challoner revised the language to more closely match the King James Version (because of its immense influence on English speaking people), and it appears that sometimes the Christological elements of the Old Testament get downplayed. But, as I say, I’ve never closely compared them; to be on the safe side, if you can handle archaic English, get a version from before Challoner’s revisions. Here’s a .pdf of it, for starters:
https://books.google.com/books?id=kofWAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=douay+rheims&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjG1byuycPKAhVI9mMKHTNnBzoQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q&f=false
I don’t bow down to this man; I disavow him as an anti-pope and state the obvious: he is not a Catholic. He is a syncretist and a globalist, a Liberal Modernist. God have mercy on him.
Just as insane as saying that the Supreme Court has no respect for the law or the Constitution.
So SSPX thinks that the Vatican will return to the true path and Sedevacantists believe that reconciliation with the current leadership is impossible? Is that a fair characterization? What do you think about Bishop Williamson? Or would you rather leave that alone? (I don’t want to bring up anything that’s going to bring too much negative attention from the powers that be).
Mr. Boner, we know you can’t help it. Vulgarity, blasphemy, sophistry– it’s in your blood. Ann Frankly, it’s not working.
Bishop Williamson seems to me to be a good man. The situation at present is unprecedented and complex; Catholics in good faith disagree about many of the details of the explanation.
Broadly speaking, I think the division is between those who think it is somehow possible for the Church to promulgate impious liturgy, canons contrary to Divine Law, erroneous catechisms, impious customs and generally to sow confusion and error from all her normative sources of doctrine (so long as they are not imposed with the full force of Infallibility), and those who think that any church that regularly disseminates error, impiety and confusion from all her normative sources of doctrine and discipline, cannot be the Church.
Thus, the SSPX is really no different from many traditional groups working within the “official” institution – they think the pope is the pope, and they object with varying degrees of intensity to what goes on, but they ultimately fear to break with it, because the sense that “one must be in communion with the pope” is strong. This carries with it the constant temptation of reintegrating into the Roman establishment, perhaps with some sort of symbolic victory for them (like an admission that VII may not be Infallible in all its utterances). They also overlook very serious matters, such as the almost certain invalidity of all Novus Ordo episcopal consecrations since 1968, which has enormous implications.
The Sedevacantists, in my opinion, have the right theological view – i.e., that, as great as is the obligation to remain in communion with the pope, even so great is the moral obligation NOT to commune with an heretic and anti-pope. More importantly, I think they are correct to point out that this conciliar movement, which routinely punishes traditionalists and downplays tradition, cooperates with globalism in advocacy for Modernism, Syncretism, Socialism, destruction of Christian identities and peoples via mass immigration, etc., absolutely cannot be the Church, for then we would have to believe that the Church can impose doctrinal and moral evil through her official offices, laws, documents and acts.
So, that’s the division as I see it; each group reveres the office of the papacy greatly, but their different approach to the question of the crisis causes one group to fear disassociation from the Vatican, and the other group to fear association with the Vatican.
All Catholics should also know, that so long as we are striving to adhere to the Magisterium, and to understand it, our errors in matter of fact on this question do not put us out of the Church. There are Catholics on both sides of the argument, though I obviously believe that one side has more correctly understood the principles of the Faith, and the implications thereof.
Exactly. This is what has befallen all of Western Civilization in the past century: an anti-tradition has emerged, occupied our institutions, and now uses the shells of the institutions to undermine the authentic Tradition of European civilization. The Universities now stand for disintegrated knowledge; the courts stand for injustice; the congress colludes against the people; the executive impedes the law; the Vatican and the diocesan chanceries carry water for the prince of hell.
Thanks, that helps. It’s strange to see how Eastern Europe has come out more spiritually healthy than the West. Part of it may be just that adversity prevents decadence, but I think a crucial difference is that no one believed the lies there under Communism– they just knew they had to hunker down and wait it out. Here, the lies are more insidious, and everyone believes them to some degree.
Any opinion on Father Coughlin and his version of social justice? Or G.K. Chesterton and Distributism? Or as a monk,are you more concerned with less worldly areas? Do you think the Church was healthy until the 60s? Sorry about all the questions.
As to Coughlin – my appraisal of him is based on five minutes of poking around on the web, and shouldn’t be taken too seriously:
He seems like a man of Celtic temperament, seeing many of the real problems, but prone to lend vehement and rash support to groups or plans that were not very wise. Part of that is also the confusion of the times; in the early 20th century, everybody could see the Jewish problem emerging in a very public way – both the Allied and the Axis powers agreed, really, on this. But, because the Leftist revolutions and wars of the past two centuries had decimated the Catholic heritage of Europe, overthrown the monarchies and undermined the Church, Socialist Fascism was the only strong horse against International Communism (aka the International Jew).
I can forgive a Catholic for being unsure what to do in that time, since it must have seemed necessary, to some, to support the lesser of two evils if we wanted to defeat Communism. What happened instead, was that “moderate” Democracies, after having buried Catholic Monarchies, defeated the last group of people who cared enough to fight the Communists in open warfare: the National Socialists. All substantive reaction to the emerging world Jewry was thus obliterated at that point; open Communism retreated to its fortresses, and latent Communism managed a sham “cold war” for the next few decades, while inculcating its ideology into the Democratic nations through Social Marxism. And that’s brought us to where we are today.
As to the Church’s health before the 60’s: well, the popes had long been warning, as had the Blessed Virgin in her apparitions, that the Church was worm-riddled from the inside by Modernist infiltrators. The apparitions at La Salette and Fatima made it clear that the great apostasy was soon to begin, starting at the very top of the Church, producing an unprecedented crisis. Nobody knows for sure what the Third Secret of Fatima contained, but of course, the instructions of the Virgin were to reveal it in 1960. This was just after the first of the modern anti-popes had taken office and announced the Second Vatican Council – so, even without knowing what it said, I think we know what it said. (Those who claim the Third Secret was revealed by JPII don’t know what they’re talking about. Read Antonio Socci’s excellent book “The Fourth Secret of Fatima,” or google “The Secret Still Silenced” and watch it on youtube).
In other words, no: the Church was badly ill, and this is why the blows that came in the 60s seemed almost to have extinguished her. In any other age of the Church, popes and bishops who put forward those ideas would have been lucky to escape from the mobs of angry faithful with their lives. But the Church had become so encrusted with the mere letter of the law, that the laity simply thought it was not their business to know sacred theology and doctrine, or to question what was happening – but, of course, the moral theology of the Church is clear that all Catholics must know the faith, and have obligations to preserve it even against their superiors in the case of heresy and immorality. And, of course, at that point Modernism was “in the air,” so to speak, such that even the Catholics thought “well, maybe the world is changing and it’s time for all this ‘Medieval’ stuff to go the way of the dodo.” It was a real coup for the enemy.
I’m interested in Distributivism, but don’t know enough about it, yet, to speak intelligently on the topic. But Chesterton is great, and always worth reading.
I think a lot of the loyalty to the King James version is a combination of the appeal of the language and tradition, rather than any pretense of deep Biblical scholarship.
I don’t know anything about Protestant bibles later than the KJV, but I have “Good News Bible” from about 1980 that reads as if the translators tried a little too hard for comprehensibility vs. beauty of language.
Interesting point on the “progress” of translations. I checked your links for the recommended bibles, and the highest rated comment for the NRSV starts with this gem: “The greatest weakness of this particular translation is its needless neutering of the Hebrew and Greek generic male pronouns. This causes difficulties (especially with the Psalms) when translating “he.” They often pluralize such cases to “Those” and “They.” This causes passages to lose personal immediacy and force.”
The description says: “Churches and homes across America overwhelmingly choose the NRSV for its
easy-to-understand translation and its sensitivity to inclusive
language.”
I see it clearly now.
I’m getting the impression that “prayer” as we know it is not what it was intended to be, in the modern sense of “learning against learning”. I would almost say it was “meditation”, but even that term, and practice, has been hijacked by granola munchers in yoga pants, with their stupid mantras and pointless eastern garbage from lands that produce people who want to emigrate to the Christian west.
Yes yes, all the world is a lie built on lies and whose domain is it? We all know this.
But in seeing this definition of reverence being the fabric of Patriarchy, I then remember where all of the reverence goes now: to the fallen women. To the woman on the pedestal. To the “moon” of the night – the “mystique”. To Eve, the one who listened to the snake. And Adam went down to, because he didn’t want to be alone.
(and God knew that was going to happen anyway and didn’t hate them, but they had to be punished and this is the lot of mankind but people will say “what do do mean there was no real Adam and Eve?” and the virus of dogma invades yet again)
I should be fake and say I’ll start praying but it would appear I already have. Baptists will say “give your life to the Lord” but I reject them, for that life was not mine to give in the first place. The only instructions I have is Ecclesiastes 3 and the only hope I have is Hebrews 11.
Exactly. We have no life to give; we only have weapons to put down, and a rebellion to forsake.
There is much more to prayer, and I’ll be going into that. But yes, reverence is the fundamental disposition for approaching prayer. Pride is the obstacle to the operation of grace; humility opens man to grace; reverence produces humility.
Another great article Aurelius!
A part that hit me was when you talked about the blasphemy and vulgarity of our era.
The more I grow spirituality, the more I see how wrong and evil the world really is and the more disgusted of it I am.
I realized that I really crave meaningfulness but all I see in this world is the exact opposite, and it has made me depressed deep down and resigned.
Have you experienced that feeling, and if so how do you cope with it?
All the time!
It is very helpful to find other men who feel as you do, to form friendships, and to restore that sense of meaning in your individual lives, and in the bond you share.
It’s also why I often put so much emphasis on keeping the traditions alive yourself: making your own prayer corner, praying the Divine Office yourself, if you must, keeping the customs for the various holy days yourself, if you must, etc.
I strive also to remain in contact with things that are meaningful. I read lots of good literature, especially from the early Modern and Medieval periods, not to mention Church Fathers, the Bible, the Classical Pagans (i.e., Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Virgil, and Ovid are my most frequent reads from antiquity). Youtube has a ton of great music from the Renaissance and Middle Ages, both religious chant, and pious folk music, in Latin and many other languages (though, often in archaic dialects).
But, by doing all of this together – immersing myself in what is good and beautiful, in keeping up the regular life of prayer, observing the fasts and feasts and their traditions, sharing as much of it with friends and family as I can, I keep my head up.
That’s funny you suggest that because I just started listening to classical music and religious chant, a thing that I never did before, as well as reading good literature.
What I find the most difficult is finding men around my age (25) who shares the same beliefs and interests.
Where are you, generally speaking?
I am from France.
Pareil ! Et on a le même prénom !
Tu viens d’où Greg?
Touraine et toi ?
De Nantes moi.
Passe ton mail, on pourra discute plus!
Ok, c’est mon pseudo disqus tout attaché at outlook.fr
There should be many, many traditional chapels near you, whether Sedevacantist, or SSPX. The great movement of resistance against the loss of the Faith and her Tradition, was begun in France (and Switzerland) by a French archbishop, Marcel Lefebvre. Let me know if you have an hard time finding something, but I imagine a web search would easily direct you towards men with similar attitudes and values to your own.
Cela me plaît beaucoup. Vous avez déjà rencontré un ami aux vues similaires! Monsieur de Charette est un très bon homme.
If you’re near Paris, there’s Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet, of course.
Religion offers no solutions at all.
False.
Psychologists have tested controlled groups of religious and non-religious people and generally the former are happier and more content, living longer than the latter. Even praying has been measured scientifically and the results are impressive, for example there was a group of seriously ill patients who were prayed for without their knowledge and the recovery rate of these patients was significantly higher than groups who were not prayed for. So, religion or at least the belief in a higher power that can be appealed to by human beings does offer positive benefits.
Here’s how I see it. Your personal beliefs are one thing, but whether you believe in religion for yourself or not, it plays an essential role in society. We need to believe in something greater than ourselves; we need faith and ritual. There is a hole in the human psyche (or soul) that, if not filled by religion, does not remain empty, but instead is taken over by a religion substitute that destroys society, tradition, logos. What is belief in progressivism, if not an inferior substitute for religion? No religion is perfect, but the alternative is worse.
Look at the Founding Fathers. Jefferson was an atheist; others were “deists” (basically agnostics), but they understood the role of religion in society.
Then, of course, there’s the issue that intellectuals argue over doctrine, while for most people, religion is ritual, community, and rules for living, but that’s another post.
Or, you can just go on believing “It’s the Current Year!”
Ah yes another article from our “Christian Brother” Moner. Yes everyone let us look to Catholicism for the “red pill” life, especially when it comes to spirituality. How telling: a “Christian” counseling the masses on “Christian” “prayer” without once mentioning the Bible or the Lord’s Prayer. All of you budding Christians, do not dare pick up your Bible and read for yourself, no no no instead trust some supposed “monk” on the Internet. Oh I can smell the incense burning, it must be prayer time!
You must be wary of frauds like Mr.Moner who claim to represent Christianity. No, they will instead bury your face in the magnificent “Catholic Catechism” before ever allowing you near the Bible itself. Yes everyone, that is what Mr.Moner truly represents: the Catechism, Rome, and all its secret handshakes (and his article above confirms that). Don’t be fooled for a second if you are truly looking to find a sense of Christian spirituality: it’s always a bait and switch operation with fraud’s like Mr.Moner.
Looking for ideas on Christian prayer? Pick up the Bible. Jesus said:
“This is how you should pray.
‘Our Father in heaven,
may your name be honored.
May your kingdom come.
May what you want to happen be done
on earth as it is done in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins,
just as we also have forgiven those who sin against us.
Keep us from falling into sin when we are tempted.
Save us from the evil one.’”
—Matthew 6:9-13
You think you know prayer better than Jesus? Think you have a better place to start for your first “formal” prayer? And for those of you that know the Lord’s Prayer, don’t turn it into some mindless chant (Matthew 6:7) and stay far away from the Hail Mary (never once is this mentioned in the Bible, nor did Jesus or his disciples ever command she be worshiped).
How can anyone in their right mind promote the teachings of an organization that shelters child molesters (sanctioned Church homosexuals), promotes the worship (sorry “intercession”) of dead men and women and ghosts (Medjugorje), and teaches that human “tradition” and made-up rituals (candles, incense, crosses, rosaries, chants, self-flagellation and the sign of the cross (and other secret handshakes)) trump anything that God’s own Son Jesus Christ could have brought to Earth? Only a fraud would equate this with the teachings of Christ.
But if life is too tough and the “blue pill” life comes a calling, then bow down before Rome, the pope, and his club of frauds and bums who really just want your mind, your money and your children. Oh they have plenty of rituals and made-up “heavenly” magic to fill the time that could be used instead for self-examination, contemplation, and spiritual exploration.
Don’t for a second fool yourself into thinking that Catholicism has anything to do with “red pill” thought: it is the furthest thing from. What a complete joke this author continues to be.
Southern Baptist Convention, are you?
Nope. Former Catholic, sometimes Agnostic, trying to find his way back to Christianity: this time through the Bible and without any distractions, intercessions, idols, or wizards.
When you’ve gotten over your father-hate, come back and see us then.
Unnecessary ad hominem, but I suppose this is the Internet.
To be clear, I don’t hate my Father, and have a good idea who He is.
Guy who calls everyone on the site “grovelling women” and calls the author a “complete joke” complains about ad hominem being applied to him. Yeah, I suppose this is the Internet.
And yes, you do hate your father, you’re just projecting it on the church you were brought up in.
Isn’t that cute! Your little head is trying to out think the big one. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/87f12eec9367684c35c50c248c9ec62ac1febf3fb96c8c0d60d478d0360181eb.jpg.
*******************
You forgot to mention the most obvious ad hominem “Aurelius Boner”.
Nope, didn’t call everyone on this site “grovelling” women, not even close. This site for the most part has been a great resource for neo-masculinity. I hate my father? That’s the best you can do? I have already explained my love of my Father.
Sad to see that not one Catholic apologist on this site can explain to any of us how the Catholic church is “red pill.”
Yes I am floored by the logic demonstrated by the Catholic invaders on this web site. How about you Shep? Can you explain to the Manosphere how the Catholic church is “red pill?” Come on it can’t be that hard.
I would hate to think that the Catholics here are really just a half dozen guys that come here to complain about their “womyn” problems. I have seen deeper conversations on other threads, why the sudden logic “vacuum” on this topic?
As far as the name:
Boner – Noun “a foolish or careless mistake”
I think it is a foolish and careless mistake for a self described “monk” to come to this site begging for money, and then dressing up Catholicism and trying to pass it off as Christian Philosophy.
Perhaps you missed your own posting a few replies up?
“It is amazing to me to see the other commentators fawning and falling at
Mr. Moner’s feet with such reverence; like a bunch of groveling women.”
And you didn’t even have the guts to admit your ad hominem by calling the author a ‘complete joke’. Call that intellectual integrity in debate? Stop changing the subject and try working without ad hominem, father-hater.
We all know you cherry picked the definition for “boner”.
**********************
You are the reason we don’t let our little heads do the thinking for us. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/809ed2e49ae567545cf2030e917b4e224eb2200fcf7091c869a29279d9b4019a.jpg
You have a familiarity with me. Do I know you by another name?
Yes, and on an article dealing with blasphemy, no less. The “Moner” in my name, is taken in honor of Blessed Dalmatius Moner, a Dominican priest, theologian, teacher, contemplative and, ultimately, hermit – a better man, I imagine, than any of us will ever be. He was a man of heroic virtues, deep charity, profound prayer and intense asceticism.
I hope Blessed Dalmatius will pray for my detractor, and inspire him to think better of his chosen handle, which dishonors so great a man.
I don’t think anyone has ever seen me “begging for money,” around here. I actually turned down the first several guys who made private offers on their own initiative.
When I was accepted as a writer for ROK, the editor was kind enough to insert the direct mention of financial assistance into my profile, where I had only alluded to it, at first.
I try to make it a point not to beg for money, because I know this is one of the big turn-offs men have to religion: it’s a money-making scheme! In the end, what mention there is of such a thing in my profile, was kindly put there by the editor, and not myself.
I hope you will reflect on the rash judgment and antipathy you have routinely demonstrated, here.
Hmm… blasphemy against a saint by using an inappropriate sexual reference, sophistry, trying to set us against each other… They can’t help themselves, these “Southern Baptists” and “former Catholics”, can they?
Just a helpful suggestion. You really seem to have a deep-seated hatred for the Catholic Church. I think it’s related to your “Authoritarian Personality.” Perhaps we could call it “Catholicphobia”. Psychoanalysis would really help. My cousin Dr. Silverbergstein could give you a good rate.
Mr. Boner’s style of argumentation, especially the “let’s you and him fight” technique, is typical of a particular group, and it sure ain’t Southern Baptists.
I personally am not a catholic. Formally protestant, still like the greater individual freedom of protestant congregations, not sure of the role of priesthood and hierarchy.
However, it does seem to me there is a place for formal ritual also.So I prefer to attend the most hightly ritualized of all of them. eastern orthodox.
I certainly appreciate the daily morning prayers of their prayer book.
People might be skeptical of the theologian of the pussy getters’ website, but I like it personally.
Sure, in the life of a man, it is hard to reconcile fornication and the church. Well nigh impossible, actually.
But we are flawed beings. Hindsight is 20/20 but………..
It is actually the fornication and acceptance of the birth control pill that led to acceptance of LGBT and from there transgenderism. All programmed by nwo gender studies departments. Basicllly that we can have a high tech biotech socially engineered sodom and Gamorrah.
Sin leads to a downward spiral of the human condition.
That is where we are now. And here is where it is leading. Human cloning, and the full spectrum of life being engineered. Hive mind, no free will, patents on our offspring.
controlled by money or mammon.
The pope was right. The pill was a mistake. The karmic result of misusing the natural process of reproduction that we were entrusted with ? well, we will lose it. It is being pried away becasue we as humanity are failing in the task. It will go to the biotech engineers and government now who will give us permission to reproduce according to their guidlines. Babies will be raised under their close supervision. Teams of expertns will regularly check in to make sure you are administering all the prescriptions and makeing sure ze (not he or she) gets taken in on schedule to receive all scheduled implants.
It is now clear why we should have listened to the pope. Not that I ever did.
This agenda was less obvious in the early 90’s when I was a young man. So I got to be a young pioneer of the glorious socially engineered society. Living with my girlfriend (now wife) in Japan at a time when living together was shocking. Like all liberals, I felt like I was teaching the Japanese a more sophisticated way of living than their traditions.
So like roosh, I simply cannot say to a young man, “Do not do it til you get married !”
I do not know the answer. I just told my son to use a condom, even if the girl says she is on the pill.
Not much for moral guidance as I do not know the answer. Just do what my dad did for me. Let me figure it out.
It will be hard to turn all this around without a sudden cataclysmic even that makes us all turn to the Lord. If having women rule over us is not punishment enough, then perhaps being conquered by Muslims.
But as for my son, he will have to figure out how to live in Babylon and still remain human. I do not know the answer.
Plenty of civilizations (Romans, Greeks) accepted infanticide, homosexuality, and all manners of sexual perversion: without having the “pill.” Although modern birth control (non-abortifacient) has created a sexual morass, there are greater forces (financial) in the world at work shaping what will come. I think it’s too easy and a distraction to blame the pill for so much.
We do not need to listen to any pope for guidance: he is just a (often times ill-informed) man and he has NO authority over me, or over you unless you welcome that slavery.
I guess what I come back to on this is how does this author’s writings fit in with the concept of “red pill?” Besides chasing ‘tail’ this site also seems to promotes themes like masculinity, individualism, and contemplation. How in the world does the idea of showing reverence to inanimate objects (buildings, statues, trinkets), dead people, and old “celibate” men demonstrate “red pill behavior?”
Aurelius Moner’s writings are so over the top Catholic, and yet they are trying to be passed off as general topics of Christianity and spiritualism. I don’t care if he posts his rhetoric on the Internet, but let’s not for a second pretend it’s not something that it is: subjugation.
It is amazing to me to see the other commentators fawning and falling at Mr. Moner’s feet with such reverence; like a bunch of groveling women. His asking for donations to build a cloister for himself is the icing on the cake. Honestly Moner, get a job and go huck your slavery somewhere else.
“Blue Pill, Blue Pill, Come Get yer Blue Pill” that’s the battle-cry of Mr.Moner.
Before Christianity, many pagan civilizations did have the attitude you describe. The Faith, however, lifted European civilization up to a much higher standard. But we have regressed to pre-Christian standards (really, even pagans would be disgusted with us, now), and skillet has correctly identified the pill (and contraception generally) as the most decisive factor in this regressive process.
There is no real difference, morally, between contracepted sex with a woman, and sodomy. In either case, the premise is the same: sex is a recreational activity that need not be connected to biological consequences. If sex is merely fun friction with a consenting partner, with the biological complimentarity of the sexes as an irrelevant factor insofar as doing and enjoying the friction is concerned, there is no longer any rationale for opposing sex with animals, sex with the same gender or, as soon as the degenerates find ways to establish that children can give consent, sex with kids.
One tactic at present, is their eagerness to imply that children can be trusted to determine what gender they “really” are, and to opt for reassignment surgeries; and if they can make that kind of decision, it would be irrational to imply that they can’t consent to a bit of fun with friction, right?
They always know how to undermine the requisite premises for justifying their next unthinkable perversion, without alerting the anesthetized populace to their real goals. Their push to affirm children’s autonomy on gender issues, is the prelude to establishing their ability to consent to sex; and in exactly the same way, no-fault divorce and the pill were their way of undermining the premises that still prohibited promiscuity and “gay marriage” (because it separated sex from biology, and separated marriage from the stable commitment to the biological reality of sex and children).
“Before Christianity, many pagan civilizations did have the attitude you describe. ” – Moner
Yes you mean the rituals and celebrations that the Catholic church absorbed and perverted to its own benefit? Tell us more about Christ’s birth in late December. Tell us about the origins of Valentine’s Day. Tell us about the Catholic sanctioned “Sun God” festivals of South America where pagan rituals are invited and performed in to your “holy” buildings. Tell us more about the “blessing” of trinkets and animals that take place in these supposed holy constructions.
Lay all the blame you want on the “pill”, but it is obvious that the continued deterioration (from within) of a church that claims to be the moral authority of Man is the true culprit. Less and less take your church seriously, and the only hope in the USA is the encouragement and absorbent of uneducated illegal aliens. This “pill” argument is nothing but a distraction of the failed hypocritical “authority” of the Roman church.
Interesting how the following topics of moral decay you list…
Homosexual sex
Child sex
Divorce
…are in fact the focus of so much scandal within the Roman church. But let’s also make sure we throw Feminism, Socialism, and Immigration on the pile as it has become more apparent than ever that the Roman church embraces and excuses those concepts as well
And to equate anal sex and bestiality to intercourse with a contracepted woman? Wow, that is quite a stretch, but gives us all an idea of how far out to lunch you truly are. Oh, but you are espousing the concept of “mortal” and “venial” sins…a whole other lever of distraction and control laid out by “celibate” and extremely wealthy old men.
For the rest of you, you can see what an overly complicated mess the Catholic church truly is. One would have to ignore all of the above to claim that Catholics in any way espouse “red pill” ideology. Do not be fooled. Think for yourselves. Read.
he covered most of those topics in the comment sections of his earlier articles. you are too lazy to look into it… you look like a childish troll.
A lazy troll? Nothing I have assembled is lazy (and so far nothing you either can refute). Mr.Moner could certainly re-post that information here: if it exists in the form you suggest…or maybe you. Who is lazy?
A question for you Steve: tell us all how the Catholic church is “Red Pill?” Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
That’s about what I expected.
I’ll only say, for the record, that the doctrines and laws of the Catholic Church Herself, require us to recognize that, from the time of Paul VI on, an apostate movement has gained the upper hand and now manages the institutions that formerly represented the Catholic Church. The nature of this crisis is complex, and it leaves many Catholics in an ambiguous position – a position wherein they are in error of fact on many points of doctrine and discipline, are subject to non-Catholic hierarchs, and take part in non-Catholic rites, but because the error is more or less innocent, they can often still be reckoned as members of the Catholic Church.
I just wanted it to be clear that no faithful Catholic regards the goings-on of the “Conciliar Church” (the apostate movement first seen exercising itself at the Vatican Council in the 1960s) as legitimate expressions of integral Catholic faith and practice. And, the best educated Catholics (in my opinion) acknowledge the fact that, really, the Conciliar Church is a schismatic movement that in no way belongs to the Catholic Church; the popes since the time of Paul VI have been antipopes, the Catechism of John Paul II is heretical, the re-written rites are impious and forbidden (by Trent, Quo Primum, all of Sacred Tradition, etc.), the New Code of Canon Law is invalid (permitting crimes which are forever forbidden by Divine Law), etc., etc.
But to explain all of this in (moderate) detail, would take an article or three. I just wanted to be on record, as saying that the church with the gay scandals and the current debates on divorce, tolerance for Ecumenism and pagan rites, etc., is certainly not the Catholic Church.
“the Conciliar Church is a schismatic movement that in no way belongs to the Catholic Church” – Mr. Moner
“the popes since the time of Paul VI have been antipopes” – Mr.Moner
“the Catechism of John Paul II is heretical” – Mr.Moner
“the New Code of Canon Law is invalid” – Mr.Moner
Absolutely amazing that you wrote that. You by your own admission have stated on RoK belonging to the Catholic church…over and over. The Roman Catholic church. The ONLY Roman Catholic church. There is no Catholic Church ‘A’ and Catholic Church ‘B.’ There is no secret pope or bishops of the “Conciliar Church” because the “Conciliar Church” does not exist. To suggest a “Conciliar Church” is heresy. YOU have NO authority to argue or teach as a “Catholic” after what you just wrote.
“Papal supremacy is the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church that the pope, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ and as pastor of the entire Christian Church, has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered: that, in brief, “the Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls.” <–Catechism of the Catholic Church.
“Heresy is the obstinate doubt or denial, after baptism, of a defined Catholic doctrine. Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or the refusal to be in communion with members of the Church who are in communion with him (CIC 751)” <– This is THE Cannon Law that is used UNIVERSALLY in the Catholic church.
Mr.Moner you are obliged to follow Cannon Law. For you to deny the Catholic church’s authority is apostasy and heresy. You are officially “outside the communion of the church” with what you just wrote. Heresy, and Schism are SINS in the Catholic Church. These sins are so grave that they call for the immediate penalty of excommunication. Since you have publicly espoused these views of the Catholic, it is now the burden of your bishop to publicly state that your teachings here are false and heretical. Who is your bishop?
You are either:
A: A charlatan pretending to be a Catholic monk on the Internet. (my guess)
B: A heretic that refuses the authority of his bishop, and the Catholic church.
C: An apostate who excommunicated himself in front of the world for the SIN of heresy and schism.
For the non-Catholics here, the above is incredibly serious to any Catholic. The foundation of the church is Canon Law. You do not violate this law. It is one thing to disagree with some of the teachings, but to promote schism and heresy is very serious. This person is either a fraud or an excommunicated Catholic.
And for the rest of the uninformed Catholics on this site…for the first time in my life I am going to say put down your bible (temporarily) and pick up your Catechism and read up on what Mr.Moner wrote, and look at my references. Read up on “heresy”, “apostacy”, and “schism.” If Mr.Moner was ever a Catholic, he is no longer. He speaks with NO authority from the Catholic church, and if you regard your religion with an ounce of sincerity and integrity, you as well are forced to ignore Mr.Moner’s teachings.
Finally the truth about Aurelius Moner.
To RooshV and any other moderators, I would highly suggest you look into the validity and identity of “Aurelius Moner.” The fact that he comes to RoK with a profile that seeks donations is suspect in itself. Someone trying to pass themselves off as an authority of the Catholic church, while at the same time denying its most basic tenets furthers what can only be called fraudulent behavior.
We need to keep the integrity of the RoK community intact. Allowing authors on this site who pose as clergy does no one here any good, and will do nothing to promote the message of neo-masculinity.
You act as though this is a revelation. It has been common knowledge on this forum for quite some time.
I will assume that my recent reply to you has covered all of this, really.
The laws and doctrines of the Church, and the Apostolic Tradition, tell us that we MUST refuse our obedience to heretics, and that even popes can lose their office and membership in the Church for heresy. The Church does not teach that any man claiming to be pope is pope; he is judged by the Rule of Faith, the same as every other member of the Church. Blessed Pope Pius IX, and the Relator at Vatican I, both answered the question of Archbishop Purcell of Baltimore in the same way.
The Archbishop, while the counsel was debating whether to proclaim papal infallibility, wondered what the Church would be able to do, if a pope fell into heresy. He was answered that the doctrine of St. Robert Bellarmine was the certain teaching of the Church: all heretics, including popes who fall into heresy, automatically lose membership (and office) in the Church. This is before any declaratory sentence is rendered; indeed, this is doubly true in the case of the pope, because the Church has no authority to depose a pope; the Church can at best recognize that a pope is self-deposed and self-excommunicated through heresy. But no declaration is necessary; the faithful must avoid and refuse communion to any heretic, including an heretical pope.
The following video may be helpful to you, if you want to understand the general outlines of the matter:
How is it not Red Pill? It is in favour of patriarchy and piety (i.e., after God, devotion to one’s own kith and kin before foreigners), it is the most rigorously developed, intellectually elevated and rationally coherent philosophical system in all of history, it condemns modern social and moral evils (Liberalism, Socialism and Modernism are all condemned heresies in the Church) and stands for natural law and traditional morals, including male headship over women in all spheres of life.
The Red Pill is Western Civilization waking up to the truths that the Catholic Church had been warning them not to abandon, all along. We have a teensy problem with the Great Apostasy occluding the institutions of the Church, now; but such is the evil of our times.
Listen to the Boner. Tradition. Ritual. Logos. These are bad things. He understands.
Yes, letting so many homosexuals into the priesthood was a bad move. Good point. As you point out, the church, like all institutions in the modern world, has been degraded by entryists, and needs to crack down.
Because there have never been anti-popes before, right? Follow “Cannon Law” or Mr. Boner will give you a whiff of the grapeshot!
Yeah! Let’s you and him fight! That’s the idea!
The answer is to recover virtue, to understand the reasons why it is superior to vice, to recover personal conviction and masculinity, and then to make a break with sinful habits because we know it is the right thing to do. I didn’t agree with everything you said, but I agreed with the bulk of it; failing to live up to our civilization’s standards of virtue, is destroying our souls in the present, and our progeny for the future.
Obviously we will get to actual prayers, and many other things, soon. Our Lord, when He taught the Paternoster to the people, was addressing people who lived in a religious culture; they already understood many basic concepts, such as reverence, and in many cases they even had a good understanding of Jewish doctrine and customs. When He met people who didn’t know such things, He acted differently.
If you knew anything about Catholic doctrine on prayer, you would know that self-examination and contemplation are central to it.
And hey, don’t tell people about our secret handshakes; if they learn the handshakes before their brains are washed with the Catechism’s hidden messages, they may not properly respond to the reptilians’ subliminal suggestions.
This is a good article, and it serves as preparation for ritualized prayer, not the prayer itself, as some below have mentioned. Sure, the Lord’s Prayer, or the Apostles’ Creed, or the Nicene Creed could simply be whomped out in front of people, but you have to have the proper mindset first, and that is what I believe the brother is trying to do here.
While I hesitate to compare worship to what I write on on this site, I notice that a common thread is “Dude, we already KNOW THIS stuff, this article is worthless.” Whether it’s “my dad taught me to shoot when I was 8” or “you forgot the Lord’s Prayer, you fraud” some readers here have never known God, at all. Or, they’ve never been with a woman, or used a firearm. Some people here are in their 50s, and some are 15.
I know that Aurelius will build on what he has started, just like many of the authors here have multiple part series and articles that follow the previous. Be patient; I await what he has to say.
Yes, I’m trying to start slowly. I understand some men may have no religious experience at all. Past that, I spent many years as a Protestant and never heard people speak as though reverence mattered; I am sure that many Protestants and Novus Ordo Catholics have never been exposed to a basic sense of reverence, let alone the rather thorough culture of reverence that exists in traditional religion.
If some men already know this, great; but I’m sure many men don’t.
If men are to save our culture and civilisation, we need to better ourselves, and not be the self-indulgent, weak and consumerist slaves that are driving our culture into oblivion. The foundation of that has to be a proper relation to our Creator and Lord.
This is of the utmost importance purely for its own sake, but it also is crucial to the survival of Western civilisation. Only a strong religious foundation can enable us to pull out of the bread and circuses that is leading us to demographic death, a hatred for our history, values and art, and the loss of Europe to waves of non-Western colonizers. Faith is what makes for large and happy families, the safeguarding of our traditions and cultural accomplishments, and is the only viable inoculation against the self-indulgent siren song of the culture of effeminate weakness, self-indulgence and death.
The disappearance of ‘ritual’ whether it be religious or military marching may be what is undoing our civilisation. Haidt in “the righteous mind’ quotes studies which show many men find joy in marching and even combat.
Yes, men, rational creatures, enjoy symbolism, pageantry and ritual. It expresses things that need to be expressed, which would otherwise remain mere ideas.
Christianity is just another cult.
Christianity is actually a philosophy. Catholicism is a religion…a cult based on “traditions” and superstition…the very things Jesus came to eliminate. What Mr.Moner is promoting is a massive “blue pill” perversion. Scratch more than the surface and the “blueness” becomes instantly apparent.
You do not need to join a “Christian” cult to be a Christian. Look up ‘Sola Fide’ and you may find a refreshing alternative to all of the superstitious misery Catholics promote.
And for anyone that is Catholic, you must read your Bible. Leave the beaten path of the weekly missalette, and discover what the “fathers” don’t want you to know.
Is the basis of belief in god love or fear? I ask because, if it is fear, fine, I would be afraid of any omnipotent being that could condemn me to eternal torture for breaking a rule he might deem important. If it is love, how can you love someone you fear?
The basis of belief in God, is Faith, and complimentary Reason. As to love and fear, I’ll get into them in next week’s article.
But, for now: we should both love and fear God. The co-existence of both emotions is normal in a traditional, masculine, hierarchical society. We are only confused by it, because we have been inundated for four centuries, now, with egalitarian nonsense.
It is natural for a person to both love and fear a person above them in the natural hierarchy; to reciprocate the love and benevolence of the superior, and to fear both to jeopardize this love and benevolence, and to incur punishment or estrangement from it. Leftism and Egalitarianism have destroyed strongly hierarchical relationships in our society, so you likely won’t be able to understand this from the way people act now, but imagine how people were a century ago: a century ago, the way a wife felt towards her husband, or children towards their father, or a virtuous soldier towards his king, his lord, his noble commanding officer, etc: would resemble the proper sentiment of the soul towards God: love, awe, respect, fear, loyalty, affection – all at once.
Well first, I can not feel anything towards an entity I don’t think is real. It’s a common myth that atheists “hate” god. That “hate”, in my experience, has been from people that are damaged believers that will once again take up faith when:
1) another tragedy befalls them
2) they somehow make peace inside themselves
In your example, one’s father is real, as his wife, as is the lord to the soldier/knight. In your example, those are very real people with direct (or indirect) power to affect the “subject’s” life. The husband could beat his wife, child (quite capriciously I might add). The King could strip his lord(s) of land and titles for even perceived insults or disloyalty. My point is the primary motivator is fear. Unless the “lord” treats the “subject” fairly and is himself very virtuous, love/respect/awe will be grudging at best. As Toni Morrison wrote:
“Definitions belong to the definers, not the defined.”
But if I may, your examples are flawed:
1) When a child, I fear my parents. They created and have a great deal of power over me. As I grow to adulthood, I can distance myself from that authority, even cut them out of my life entirely if I think this is necessary. This is growth, and quite healthy. With god (as I think you see him) this is never possible. He is always your creator to demand whatever from you, as if one were a perpetual child.
2) With the “husband/wife” dynamic from the 1880’s or whenever. While the male was generally the more dominant partner this is also partly symbiosis. The man cannot do everything, he can’t farm or work in a factory for 12 hrs, then do ALL the household tasks. Also how many spouses felt nothing but resentment for the other?
3)The king or lord and subject is also difficult. How many kings or lords were overthrown? While some rulers were virtuous, how many are tyrants? Surely you wouldn’t describe god as a tyrant? And I know I keep bringing this up, but is eternal punishment (ie christian view of hell) not somewhat tyrannical? Especially as humans are flawed and god knowingly made us that way?
Lastly, if god ALLOWS suffering in the world, is he benevolent? Imagine I hire a babysitter, a human being with our limited faculties. After a night out I come home to find bruise on my daughter’s forehead. The babysitter tells me she was running around and banged her head. I might accept that this is an accident and no fault of the sitter, but would consider not hiring her again. Now imagine a god of unlimited power/knowledge/and resources that lets terrible things happen all the time to people of all types. What’s going on there? “It’s a plan we can’t know?” oft goes the refrain? Well if that’s so, then do we ever get to know?
My point is the primary motivator is fear, fear of punishment, and fear of the unknown.
Well, if one always argues from the exception – a tactic of the Left, I would add (not in an accusatory tone, but simply to point out how much of the Leftist method and thought we wind up absorbing) – then, of course one can criticize something (unjustly) ad gustum. God is not a limited, flawed, Being; so appealing to kings that get overthrown, spouses that resent each other, and abusive fathers, is not really germane. The better analogy, in His case, are the kings that are praised and beloved, that spouses that have good relationships (historically higher in number, since atomization and selfishness, epidemic in our times, are the real destroyers of relationships), and fathers that discipline their wives and children responsibly.
Your objection that we are “perpetual children” in relation to God, first of all, can be turned back on you with your last argument: you argue that God should simply rescue us from every bump on the head, or he is a “bad babysitter.” Talk about perpetual childhood! No, God insists that man face the full reality of the situation, and the contest with evil is the only means of supplying this.
In the second place, if we strip the pejorative semantics from your assertion of perpetual childhood, I can only answer that this is the objection of a person raised in an age without hierarchy and order – a man still nursing on the milk of egalitarianism. You will recall that I made this a central element of my reply: egalitarianism is the mental disease the West currently has. When we get down to brass tacks, it is the defining difference between the “Left” and “Right” (over the past 400 years of European Civilization, not just in terms of American Politics): the Left is egalitarian and hates hierarchy because it is comprised of sociopaths and narcissists who resent the notion that they may be subordinated and answerable to something above themselves; the Right is hierarchical, resigning itself to the fact that there is a better and worse, an higher and lower, a smarter and stupider, a ruler and a subject… and, by finding the most noble and virtuous ways of living in harmony with hierarchy, the Right can go beyond resignation to the fact of inequality, and can even come to appreciate the variety, devising systems of courtesy, reverence, fair play, etc., by which the acknowledgment of hierarchy becomes ennobling for all men at all levels of society.
So, that would be my main reply to you: yes, God is over us, and always will be. A man of substance, one who does not have an hollow chest, will not resent his inferiority to the Almighty, but will acknowledge this in reverence – just as he acknowledges his subjection to his father, employer, military commander, king, etc., for so long as that is appropriate. This is not a degrading or humiliating experience, but an ennobling one. Acknowledgment of dependence upon the Source of our being is not a perpetual childhood, but the foundation of manly character.
Genocide, massive starvation, natural disasters and disease are not “bumps on the head”. A being that could stop those things with a thought but does not is aloof at best, cruel at worst.
The perpetual childhood was one example, I think the subject/master was the more important and frightening one. Muslims (and a few christian) literally describe themselves as “slaves of Allah”. While you are correct that the left often embraces foolish notions of equality, the idea that one is in eternal servitude to an omnipotent, unquestionable authority is HORRIFYING.
While my chest may be hollow (hilarious by the way), questioning authority is almost always a sign of character and substance.
I started becoming interested in faith and mysticism shortly after enrolling in a course on Sufi literature and poetry of Iran many years ago. Rumi and Hafez have been constant companions on my path ever since.
I’ve long wanted to learn more about Sufi beliefs.
A taste:
Br. Aurelius,
I could definitely support an influential place for the Catholic Church as the West regenerates itself but how can we adhere to an organization that not only refuses to resist the flooding of Europe with Muslims, but actually encourages it? The Church, for all its talk about the dignity of human life, seems to not include community within this dignity. The Church likes to interpret scripture verses that talk about “caring for strangers” as meaning that Western countries are obliged to take in the 3rd world and be forced-intergrated with them.
Do you believe there is any hope that the Church could respect the rights of people to have communities (neighborhoods, towns,regions, nations) with those they identify with? It seems that just as God made families for people to thrive in, He also made ethnic groups as an extension of the family. Will the CHurch start to demand that people start taking in “strangers” into their families as well?
As it looks right now, the Church is just acting as another cog in the globalist machine for creating a NWO. Do you believe there are forces in the Church strong enough to oppose the globalist elites?
I will say that our situation is dire, and that most of the hierarchy are no longer Catholics. My belief is that Francis, and the vast majority of other bishops, are not members of the Catholic Church. As with so many other elements of modern society, entryists have infiltrated all the institutions and turned them against the principles they were initially designed to protect.
It is my belief that nothing will seriously change at this point, without a major crisis to serve as the catalyst. I could go on for pages, but I’ll leave it at that, for now.
In the meantime, men who are looking for the Faith, should bypass the impostors that have driven the institutions into a ditch. I will be doing an article about where the Church may be found, in a month or so. In the meantime, find a sane Sedevacantist chapel, or, in a pinch, an SSPX chapel.
Here is a list of reputable Sedevacantist places, though obviously I haven’t personally been to all of them:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/locations/
Here is a list of SSPX chapels (USA):
http://sspx.org/en/community/priories
You didn’t mention the FSSP; what is your opinion of them?
I have known several FSSP priests; they have all been men of good character, and there is no doubt that they are Catholics. Because of the modern situation, I sometimes find that they err in serious matters of fact, feeling the pressure to approve of the conciliar magisterium. But I find some priests even in the FSSP, who think all of this will be anathematized at a future council.
That said, an additional part of my reason for being a Sedevacantist, is the fact that the new rite for episcopal consecration is almost certainly invalid. This opinion is not a frivolous one; it was put forward by several serious men and theologians, including so great a man as the eminent Cardinal Ottaviani, who was Secretary of the Holy Office (i.e., head of the CDF, the highest doctrinal authority in the Church, after the Supreme Pontiff himself).
The reply was given to them (by Dom Botte, the apostate Benedictine that wrote the new rite, and who privately indicated to others that he found the whole concept of “validity” to be frivolous and outdated), that the prayer of consecration in the New Rite was taken from a Syriac and Coptic forms, based upon an ancient prayer in the “Apostolic Tradition” ascribed to St. Hippolytus (though uncertainly so; it is an odd work). It would be insulting (and wrong) to assert that certainly valid, ancient liturgies of the Eastern Churches were invalid, so the matter was dropped.
But it subsequently became clear that this was not true at all. First, the prayer of consecration was not identical to the Eastern Rite prayers – it was drastically shortened; second, the prayer was not taken from a rite for consecrating bishops, but from a rite for promoting men who were already bishops, to the rank of archbishop/metropolitan. For validity, the Church teaches that the sacramental form for ordinations must “univocally signify the sacramental effects — that is, the power of the Order and the grace of the Holy Ghost” (Sacramentum Ordinis, Pope Pius XII). Cardinal Ottaviani and others were right to suggest that the new rite lacks both of these elements, and we now see that the story they were told in order to assuage their consciences, was not at all true. The new rite for making bishops, it seems to me, is certainly invalid.
This means that the “bishops” of the Latin Rite, since 1968, have not been validly consecrated as bishops. This in turn means that no priests ordained by them, were validly ordained. Sadly, as good and faithful Catholics as many FSSP clergy are, I think there is grave reason to doubt that they received true and valid holy orders. For that reason, I do not approach them for any sacraments.
A very thorough essay that goes into all the details of the matter, in a very clear and readable way:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf
Thanks for taking the time to write a well thought out reply and linking the article. It’s definitely something to chew on and makes me weep for the confusion of the age we live in. I am working full time, raising a growing family and trying to make a go of the seventy acres I now own and don’t have as much time as I used to for looking into these matters, though this seems pretty grave so I’ll have to give more of a priority.
I have gotten a lot of the article you wrote. It stirred up some deep buried anger and challenged some of the apathy I have towards the world and people. I’m thankful you’re contributing here; it’s good stuff.
Well, thanks be to God. May He bless you, increase your charity and faith, and grant the knowledge you need to make the best decisions for yourself and your family.
This issue of freedom of community is really the only issue I have with the Church. As far as the new mass, well it’s been changed before. And while I believe Latin is a truly divine language, I think it’s more beneficial that people understand what is being said. As far as people being “saved” outside the Church, I have no problem with that doctrine either.
Of course I will openly admit that I take with a grain of salt anything anybody says about the afterlife. No one knows what happens when we die. I also can’t say I truly believe in any of the miracles as told in scripture (although I do leave open the possibility).
I do believe in God however, if God means the ultimate reality behind all things. I believe Christ mostly as an allegorical representation of hope, goodness, and sacrificing for others. I believe in the power of prayer. I believe the moral teachings of Christianity are very beneficial for individuals and society. I could definitely get behind a return to Catholic dominance and even Christian monarchy BUT ONLY IF IT INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF COMMUNITY.
The Church has a golden opportunity with the refugee crises to lead a new crusade of bringing order (moral, ethnic, and spiritual) back to Europe. And despite tons of evidence to the contrary, I believe there may still be forces in the Church who would lead such a crusade. A crisis is coming and the Church’s survival in the West may depend on how it handles this crisis.
I do respect your choice of vocation. I find myself wanting to be a hermit or monk sometimes, but at this point this is only out of disgust for the modern world. And that can’t be someone’s sole reason for pursuing such a life.
First, you’re right that disgust is no reason to become an hermit. I will put my vocation in these terms: I was positively drawn to the monastic ideals; disgust played the important role of minimizing any temptation to turn away from them.
We disagree, obviously, on the literal truthfulness of the Faith. May God give us both the light we need.
The Church’s position on free association, is essentially thus: reason dictates that only what is right, is right; there are no “rights” to do what is not right. However, the crusade to make everything “right,” is often more harmful than tolerating some wrongs, and imperfections. So, the Church insists on the principle, that we must not speak of “rights” to freedom of religion, free speech, freedom of the press, free association, etc., without regard to the objective moral content of the behavior involved. Yet at the same time, tolerance in many of these fields, even of wrong or immoral conduct, is to be commended for the greater good.
In the case of religions/communities of people, the Church’s position has been that the Catholic Faith has full rights in society; other religions which are in accord with natural law may be tolerated, so long as its members are peaceable and do not use the toleration accorded them to undermine the Catholic Faith; religions which are not compatible with natural law, and require antagonism towards the Catholic Faith or to Catholic States, are not tolerated. Same for associations of people; as a general rule, men should be allowed to do business, spend leisure-time, etc., with whomever they please. But, women are bound to do as their husbands/fathers tell them (as are children), and organized groups are otherwise subject to the same considerations as religions. There is no reason why the state should tolerate Communist and Socialist organizations, agit-prop groups like the SPLC, gay bars, etc., on grounds of “free association” or “freedom of community.”
As to the Mass, it is a misconception that it has been changed before. The Mass as it existed until the Novus Ordo, is essentially the same as our earliest records of the Mass. The only real changes that have occurred in the Mass, were the inclusion, over time, of various “extras” – special verses called “tropes” or “farses” on the chants of the Mass, the addition of Sequences on Sundays and Feasts, bidding prayers and processions just before the Mass, etc. Otherwise, the only changes were minor – the position of the Lord’s Prayer, the arrangement of the prayers in the Canon, or the many local variations of the rite in each diocese, whereby priests used one prayer or another for the “Suscipe” or the priest’s thanksgiving after Communion, minor variations in what the priest said while communing the laity, slight variations in rubrics, etc.
But the vast majority of the Mass, remained unchanged since our earliest complete records of it in late antiquity. The Missal of St. Pius V, simply returned to a very pure and austere form of the Roman Rite, with the vast majority of the additions removed. This meant that the Missal of St. Pius V resulted in a different “feel” of Mass – more austere, more simple and clean, allowing for potentially shorter celebrations than previously – but the content of the rite, the doctrine it taught, its structure and its very words, its continuity with the past, was left intact.
It was entirely different with the Novus Ordo. The Lectionary was completely re-imagined into a form that had never existed in the Roman Rite; the structure of the Mass was uprooted, with the usual beginning becoming one of a few options for a new “penitential rite,” the definitively important Offertory being completely abolished, the addition of entirely new Eucharistic prayers, the omission of the honor due to the Saints, and very careful editing to remove all reference to humility, sin, contrition, penance, etc. And we needn’t go into the degradation of the rubrics, the heretical intent of the Novus Ordo as explained in its preface, the abandonment of care for diligence in the consecration (with the abolition of the De Defectibus instructions of the Missal), the many “options” which have the result of abandoning the heritage of Gregorian Chant and Sacred Polyphony, the proliferation of “lay ministers,” abuses and other profanations. It teaches a completely different religion – more like an innocuous Lutheranism – and is unrecognizable as a real form of the Roman Rite.
The Church teaches that those outside the visible Church can be saved either through: a) invincible ignorance, if they are faithful to the grace given them and are moved to perfect contrition and charity; b) by desire of belonging to the Church, if they are intending to belong to the Church and to obey its Magisterium, but are in error of fact about the matter; c) by desire for baptism, if they are unable to obtain it, or if they are catechumens who are overtaken by an unforeseen calamity.
The Church does have an opportunity, but the institutions and the establishment have been usurped by non-Catholics, so we look in vain to them for help. In the event of a calamity, perhaps some of them will return to the Church; but in the meantime, the Church is to be found amongst the scattered faithful still loyal to the Magisterium. May God help us all to discern and fulfil His will for our times.
Br. Aurelius, thank you for the well written and thought provoking article. I grew up in the Church before Vatican II. The changes in liturgy from that Council began to be implemented late in my time in high school. In my opinion, those liturgical changes were not wise. For me, the cost of those changes far exceeded their value.
I entirely agree. I would go further, and say that the condemnation of the canons of Pistoia, the condemnations issued by the Council of Trent, and the invocation of Infallibility by pope St. Pius V to establish his missal as the perpetual norm for the Roman Rite ever afterwards, all make the new rites illicit, and make it an heresy to approve of their use.
The common teaching of the Church is that negative condemnations (by the Extraordinary or Universal Ordinary Magisterium) are infallible. Trent condemned the following idea:
Can. 13. Si quis dixerit, receptos et approbatos Ecclesiae catholicae ritus in sollemni sacramentorum administratione adhiberi consuetos aut contemni, aut sine peccato a ministris pro libito omitti, aut in novos alios per quemcumque ecclesiarurn pastorem mutari posse: an. s.
(“If anyone shall merely have said, that the wonted rites of the Catholic Church, which have been received and approved for use in the solemn administration of the Sacraments, may be either despised, or may be omitted by the ministers without sin, or may be changed into other, new ones by any pastor whomsoever of the Churches, let him be accursed.”)
The Church also formally condemned the statement of the synod of Pistoia, which held that the Church should change the rites into the vernacular languages, and taught that perhaps the liturgy was misguided in its usual principles. The Church condemned the idea, but this was precisely the attitude that motivated the liturgical revisions after VII.
This is truly a great article. RoK you are the best!
Even though I always dramatize and exaggerate to get my point through, I will simply put what I just read in this article in the following sentence. I went once to an old Orthodox Christian priest, with anger in my heart, anger for all the evil things that are being done to my countrymen, my country itself, the continent and the world. I didn’t know what to ask him, but my words were : ,,What are we to do with the evil that comes into our lives”. I was sincerely expecting an answer with a more hand on approach, some activism perhaps, instead his response, even though it did not extinguish my anger, made me understand something later on. His words were : ,,There is only one solution to dissolve evil – prayer. We need to pray to God to help us understand the evil and to give us the tools to fight it through the soul.” The only way the evil that has engulfed humanity will be beaten, is if all humanity wakes up at a spiritual level. I see this ROK article as a blessing. And I am not exaggerating now.
I like several points from this article:
The disrespect of God and blasphemy has reached high levels. That guy on HBO can’t take a shit with out bragging about how he is an atheist.
God is the ultimate patriarch. And masculine men must have fear, awe and be humble.
Thanks for this article. I’ll pray to God and thank Jesus and keep these points.
Prayer? What the fuck is wrong with you guys? Send my regards to Zeus or whoever.
Will you be guiding us through Lent?
This site is getting better and better. Thanks, Brother Moner.
Machiavelli, of all people, knew the virtue of reverence. After he had spent his day in the tavern or rolling dice with ruffians, he came home, retired to his chamber, changed his clothes, donning a formal robe, and only then did he open his beloved Livy. Reverence allows the excellence of what we revere to enter us and lift us up to it.
Great article as always Aurelius. Reverence and the sacred have been lost in modern Christianity (except maybe in the Orthodox and Assyrian and traditional Catholic Churches). Now Jesus is just a cool guy who we just want as our friend.
It is rare that I hear a hymn in church (Catholic) that even has a hint of reverence or the sacred. What we need is a return to tradition, where we are expected to uphold the faith as it has been handed on. But it is our bishops who have abandoned tradition in favor of their own teaching authority. I think they get some kind of high from being novel and making their own new interpretations of the faith.