Breaking the Seal of Confession

In the state of Washington, and in many other places, legislatures have acted cruelly toward Christian Churches that have the sacrament of confession. Also called reconciliation, the sacredness of this sacrament has been guarded as a matter so holy that any priest daring to break is latae sententiae excommunicated under Church law. While these laws are set up with a noble goal of protecting children from molesters, these noble goals open up more problems with their solutions than they actually fix. But I think it's actually important that people understand what goes on in the sacrament of confession when a penitent approaches with fear and with faith.

In the sacrament of confession, we confess our sins committed after baptism. While most focus exclusively on mortal sins, any sin can be confessed, even temptations suffered. The priest is bound to the obligation of secrecy. This goes back to the event Noah and his sons in Genesis 9:21-27 where Ham, Shem, and Japeth saw their father naked. While Shem and Japeth covered him, Ham refused to do so. Allowing his father to be embarrassed in his nakedness, Ham received a curse of the highest censure from God. It wasn't a racial curse, it was a curse on all who refuse to cover their brother's nakedness. In the medieval decretals of Gratian, we read a severe reprimand of any priest who breaks what is called the seal of confession: "'Let the priest who dares to make known the sins of his penitent be deposed', and he goes on to say that the violator of this law should be made a life-long, ignominious wanderer.'" This is because our sins that we confess and are given mercy to, the only one who continues to care about them afterward, is Satan. The Accuser who wants to make us revel in our sins and be bound to our despair.

It is a form of the sin of detraction for a priest to break the seal of confession. The seal of confession is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit and for a priest to break this seal, it is a grave sin. It is a grave sin for a layman to listen in on his brother's confession. These are sins of detraction. We live in a modern culture of democracy where politicians find themselves so ugly that the only way they ascend to the top is by presenting them as the least ugliest. So they present their opponents as uglier. They highlight their opponents' sins in the form of negative campaigning because they have no accomplishments of their own. Living in this culture of detraction, I fear many Christians have forgotten what the sin of detraction even is or are even aware that it is a sin. But highlighting other people's sins in public brings upon themselves the curse of Ham. We're used to public trials, lawsuits, smear campaigns, that many people don't even look at these as sins anymore. No wonder why we no longer live in the realm of charity! Our society punts charity to the side and endorses sins against charity. If you don't cooperate in these sins, you're viewed as almost alien.

And that's why so much emphasis is placed on the seal of confession. The Church is not protecting child molesters or sex abusers by honoring the seal of confession. They are guarding the penitent who has sought out the grace and aid of Our Lord to flea from his sins. In the sacrament of confession, we are unbound from the chains of sin that the Devil has placed on us. And these laws targeting the seal of confession are an assault on the essence and nature of the sacrament. These laws would relegate the sacrament of confession to a matter of dubiousness. Am I really receiving grace or will the priest report me to my friends as he already takes this sacrament so lightly to begin with and cares nothing for the serious nature of it? Am I going to be bound continually to this sin I seek to free myself from? These laws do more harm to the seal of confession. In confession, the letter of the law is not what reigns.

Theologically, these laws are an odious assault on grace and true charity. While we should protect children and the abused from child molesters and murderers and assailants, the sacrament of confession is not the letter of the law of the State nor is the Church the handmaiden of the State to use her sacraments as a means for "catching bad guys". In many instances of confession, the priest sits on one side of a booth separated from the penitent who speaks through a grate. How would most priests, who hear thousands of confessions a year, hundreds a week, even know who is confessing to them? How would the State even know what a priest has heard in a confession unless a State agent sneaks in and listens in on a confession? Aside from having a twisted view on theology, the State would have to become thuggish in order to even properly enforce this law.

While many are praising this law as protecting children from abusers, the reality is that the nature of this law attempts to twist the Church into becoming a police agent for the purposes of the State, it assaults the nature of confession, it encourages the sin of detraction as a virtue, and it has no real way of being enforced as the nature of the sacrament is entirely secret, often times anonymous. Are those defending the seal though guilty of defending child molesters then? I want to be clear on this as I have been falsely accused of not caring about children myself. The answer is: NO! The answer is "no" because it's about defending what the nature of the Church is and what the nature of confession is. We live in a world where people want to storm the Church and violate the sanctuary. Whether it's the State breaking in and capturing immigrants or its the State breaking in and intruding upon confession, the State is in violation of the sacred. Far from defending child molesters, and there are many other ways to bring justice to those that the State could pursue, Christians defending the sacrament of confession are only doing that and nothing more. Confession is not the place to "catch bad guys". It's the place to offer spiritual instruction so that wolves may become sheep.

How the next Pope can heal divisions...

One of the challenges facing the next Pope, regardless as to who it is, will be in healing the cultural divide between the unfortunate wings of the Catholic Church. Cardinal Pietro Parolin, who is seen as a favorite to become the next Pope, has spoken of one of the more unfortunate divides in the Church over the Tridentine Mass. There is gossip about him that he intends to further restrict it, but I am actually not entirely certain about that. He seems to even take a more sympathetic stance toward the French regarding Traditionis Custodes. Although it's hard to tell what Parolin's exact views are in the midst of the gossip and banter, I think the divide among Catholics regarding Old Rites and New Rites is going to continue unless something is done.

Traditionis Custodes, on face value, doesn't ban the Tridentine Mass, though many Bishops maliciously took it that way. Here is where I'll say things that Traditionalists are not going to like, but they need to understand. I do not believe that Traditionis Custodes was ever intended to phase out the Tridentine Mass at all, but was meant to build bridges between those in the Church who refused to attend the Novus Ordo and preferred the Tridentine Mass with those who only looked at the Novus Ordo as the true expression of Vatican II. One thing neglected among Catholics and often difficult to grasp is the hermeneutics of continuity. The hermeneutics of continuity is the Church's official doctrine regarding the interpretation of Vatican II with the continuity of the Church as it existed before Vatican II. If one reads works such as Michael Davies's The Liturgical Revolution or Alcuin Reid's Organic Liturgy, one will find that the reform of the Western liturgy actually predates Vatican II. The only Missal we got from Vatican II was the 1962 Roman Missal, and Eastern Catholics were ordered to return to their traditions.

Far from being an anti-Traditionalist Council, Vatican II encapsulated the pastoral process of prior years leading up to its culmination. Today, you won't see many Catholics fasting from midnight before they receive Holy Communion in the morning, let alone six hours prior to receiving Holy Communion as is a recommended abbreviated Eucharistic fast in the East. You can thank the Ven. Pius XII for shortening the Eucharistic fast, not Vatican II! And that, I don't think, is understood when we talk about Vatican II's liturgical reforms. They predated Vatican II. Far from being a Council that changed the direction of the Western Church, Vatican II further propelled the Western Church on liturgical reform. But some reform is too much. That is where Traditionalists have a point.

The problem in the Church, is not that there are two expressions of the Western Rite. The problem is one group insisting that only one version of that expression was valid. The next Pope is going to have to address this issue with the same hermeneutics of continuity that his predecessors used. Far from phasing out the Tridentine Mass, it must be noted from Traditionis Custodes, that Francis actually wanted the Tridentine Mass continued. But he wanted the Tridentine Mass continued in the spirit of continuity with the Novus Ordo. This was also Pope John Paul II's and Pope Benedict XVI's vision as well. Such position is also maintained by Cardinal Sarah, whom Traditionalists are very enthused with. But many who attend the Tridentine Mass refuse to see the Novus Ordo as valid. Which is why Francis went to great lengths to ensure that those who continued celebrating the Tridentine Mass would also see the Novus Ordo as valid. In order to continue Francis's legacy, the next Pope will have to further help Traditionalists see the Novus Ordo as bearing continuity with the ancient Church.

But how is that to be done? With the general direction the Novus Ordo is going, things have to change in the Novus Ordo. Let's be realistic, Traditionalists are going to continue looking at the Novus Ordo with skepticism if bishops and priests continue to castigate those who receive on the tongue or in the mouth despite the Church's instruction. Traditionalists are never going to see the Novus Ordo as respectful to God if the charismatic dancing continues to be done and EHMCs remain as numerous as they do and the priests continue to appear as if they're just having a conversation with the congregation. Traditionalists would come to accept the Novus Ordo if it included more incense, was done ad orientem, and with much more Gregorian chant as Musicam sacram argues for and commends. Far from being anti-traditional, much of the abuses that we see in the Novus Ordo, the Church already does consider as being in opposition with the spirit of Vatican II that these people claim to follow. And the next Pope will have to further address these deficiencies. In that way, bringing Novus Ordo attendees to respect the ancient customs of the Church and Tridentine Mass attendees to respect the New Mass of St. Paul VI. I don't think any Traditionalists have issues with the Ordinariate, after all.

The next Pope, in bringing together Traditionalists, Novus Ordo attendees, and the Ordinariate, will be fulfilling not only the legacy of Pope Francis, but will also be fulfilling the hermeneutics of continuity of Vatican II, honoring the ancient Traditions of the Church, and building bridges in the Church Universal. Also, he would not be giving cause for anxiety to Eastern Rite Catholics who might be more inclined to wonder that if the Pope can abrogate a Western liturgy, can he then abrogate an Eastern liturgy? Far from being against the reforms of Vatican II, a Novus Ordo, reconstructed and enforced to include more Gregorian chant, incense, and ad orientem posturing of the priests, is both what is encouraged and what is the expectation of Vatican II. Far from being against the reforms of Vatican II, the 1962 Roman Missal was produced by that Council. Far from being against the reforms of Vatican II, the Ordinariate is just the fruitful outcome of a theologically corrected once-Protestant liturgy. Far from being against the reforms of Vatican II, a return to Tradition was called for. The next Pope's biggest task will be in implementing what those reforms actually looked like. Easing Traditionalists into accepting not the Novus Ordo as they have perceived it, but as the Church perceived it. In doing so, Traditionalists would come to accept the Novus Ordo, also allowing for easing of restrictions against the Tridentine Mass and a greater harmony of continuity to exist in the Church. I pray the next Pope can actually do what the Church needs, and not further continue divisions by ignoring the plights of the Traditionalists.

MAGA's trends toward liberalism...

Christians are not talking about this enough right now. There are the common Woke critiques of the Trump Administration right now that even some self-professing Christians are going on and then claiming that they are doing what other Christians should. But these range on subjects that are either morally neutral or morally commendable. For instance, the ending of DEI should rightfully be praised by Christians. While the suffering that has been experienced by many races under the yoke of past white supremacy is not something that we should ever want to see come back, the problem with DEI and affirmative action is that it issued an ideology founded in a never-ending cycle of revenge politics. To truly move past our racist past, we can't allow either the past white supremacy or the current implementing of hiring people based solely on race to continue. People's attributes need to be looked at. Their work ethic, their ability to function on a team, and their commitment to creating a better life for their peers.

Immigration policy has been something frequently critiqued by Christians on the grounds that Christians are expected to welcome the foreigner. Christians are supposed to welcome the foreigner. The State has the right to establish proper order (Rom. 13:1-4). Immigration policies should be based on a combination of both the individual obligation and the State's obligation to be a guarantor of order in society. I've seen many Christians on both sides of the issue failing to properly synthesize that issue. Mass deportations are the current result of a past Administration which committed a dereliction of their duty to create order, allowing numerous people into a country unchecked. The Laken Riley Act, which was passed recently, received support from both Republican and Democrat Senators. I'm not saying Democrat and Republican support makes something inherently wholesome, but it shows that there needs to be real concern for the State to actually guarantee security and safety to its nation. I would hope that these mass deportations are being conducted in a humanitarian way, and that's the best I can state because I don't have control over the situation.

Cutting USAID has also recently been something that I've seen Christians taking issue with. And while cutting funding to charity groups has disastrous consequences for the charity groups that are doing legitimately quality work in improving people's lives, there needs to be something said about this. Government funding needs to be able to have oversight from the general public. Which means sending tax-money to a charity group is not a good thing to happen at any rate. All the tax-payer can see is that their money has been sent to a third-party group. They have no idea what this third-party group is doing with their money or even if they support that. It's like using tax-money to build a wall that many people don't support. Individuals should be allowed and invested with the authority to discern how their money is spent, even if its tax-money, and they should be allowed to see how government is using or abusing that money. Christians on both sides need to start looking at government distributism like that. Too often we hear the phrase "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" used as a justification for outrageous taxation, along with Romans 13:1-4. However, in creating proper order, the State needs to also honor the individual who was made in the image of God, otherwise, the tyranny of the collective will be implemented.

There are also a shocking number of Christians who are opposing the Administration's relative pivots on transgenderism and abortion from the previous Administration's. I'm not sure where these people got their theology from, but according to Christian tradition, God created mankind male and female (Gen. 1:26-27). There is also the historic condemnation of murder which applies to children in the womb as well as to those outside it. There are frighteningly very few Christians who are opposing sending money to Israel to use in an offensive against Gaza. While I support Israel's right to defend its citizens from being kidnapped by the terror group Hamas, I only support a defensive. At the same time, Ukraine also has a right to defend its own borders from Russia. But the Benedictine position would be to pursue peace between the Romans and the Lombards in regard to both issues. Christians on both sides have de-sacralized life by promoting a twisted anthropology defending the murder of the unborn, turning from the truth of creation, and salivating over war and the destruction of lives.

Which takes me back to the main point. While there are many legitimate concerns over the criticism of the Trump Administration right now, as there were many concerns over the Biden Administration, I've seen Christians on both sides missing the mark. Part of it is because of a grotesque negligence of historic Christianity, but there is also a political element to it as well. I can certainly understand the people who voted for Trump over Harris as a lesser evil, but the people who voted for him and are supporting him whole-heartedly while claiming that they are pro-life is frightening. We have a man who supports the abortion pill about to take over Human Health Services. Both J.D. Vance and Donald Trump have spoken out in favor of the abortion pill. MAGA has become liberalized to the same extent that the Democrat Party has become liberalized. What I mean by liberalized is this - there is a devaluation of the sacred among the movement that emphasizes the material over that of the sacred and even throws out the sacred. The material nation is now more important than the Church. Winning elections is more important than influencing culture for future generations. Joe Biden said in 2021 that democracy has prevailed. In 2025, we are finally seeing the effects of that victory that democracy has won. Democracy has won and it has conquered the Church. Well, rather, it looks like its winning. The Church will never be conquered.

I am very frightened by the liberalism that has been embraced by Christians who are in the MAGA movement. While there are some good things that the Trump Administration has done, there can be no doubt that a Christian cannot support the totality of this Administration. While it may be an improvement for Christians than the last Administration, which was even more divisive at this point, it's grotesquely imperfect. Put not your trust in princes. The worship of political leaders - Trudeau, Trump, Harris, Vance, Biden, etc. - is not something Christians should get behind at all. A lot of right-wing Christians have anger toward church leaders for failing to properly call out the Biden Administration and they are right to be angered about that. Left-wing theology is not the solution to the right-wing politics among Christianity. One failure of the Church this past decade is in the over-protection of republican forms of government and the neglect of the sacred aspect of the human condition. Had the Church been properly addressing this, we would not have the political idolatry. Man is hungry right now. They are hungry for God. But if the Church yields its evangelical duties, Man will find God in himself and exert power over others. This has been the frightening scenario for the last decade.

What would it take? (response to Mr. Roger Olson)

Mr. Roger Olson, an Evangelical historical theologian who, over the past several years, has demonstrated the political intoxication of American Evangelicalism from the "never-Trump side", blogged recently about the reaction to Trump's conviction by a Manhattan jury. My main response to his question is perceived fairness. When Democrats tell you in 2016 that Hillary Clinton shouldn't be prosecuted because that's prosecuting political opponents, then open an investigation in 2017 on their political opponent over "collusion with Russia" which was proven never occurred, then in 2020 complain about Trump attempting to investigate Biden, then start cheerleading over the conviction of a President, any effort to lecture the general populace on democracy, fairness, rule of law, is moot. Now, one could insist that it was a "jury of his peers" to defend said "fairness", but that ignores the fact of how Manhattan voted in 2020 (85-15 pro-Biden). This is a district where you are almost guaranteed to get a jury of your peers that's 10-2 Democrat, with strong Democrat ideologues, where Democrat bullies can bludgeon the other two to render in the desired verdict. Does that seem "fair"?

Mr. Olson also complains that Trump is a bully though. In his efforts to condemn people who still support Trump to Hell after this. Right. Trump is a bully. I've been abused by both people on the right and people on the left for solely being autistic. Now, Mr. Olson can deny my personal experience (which is called gaslighting and a form of bullying), or Mr. Olson can take my personal experience into account for why I find the left more venomous. Because even though I've been abused for my autism by people on both sides of the court, none has abused me more than those who are Biden-voters. While Joe Biden himself may not be a bully, his failure to control and stabilize his voting base is telling. When a significant portion of Biden-voters found on social media tell you things like you're a moron because you're autistic or that you shouldn't vote or be allowed to drive because you're autistic, you definitely have a much different perspective. Trump might be a bully but who he bullies are people who deserve it. I would rather have a President who refers to Biden-voters who abuse people based on their disability as human scum than what we currently have.

Mr. Olson, despite being an Evangelical, apparently has no concern for the Left-wing agenda. No one may sway his opinion on this, but I'm fully aware that Christians, even Evangelicals, are opposed to the Left-wing agenda of tax-funded trans surgeries for minors, tax-funded abortions, tax-funded overseas wars, gay marriage, abortion up to the point of birth, etc. Since Mr. Olson is a Christian and against all of that, I do find it curious he thinks the Left-wing agenda is no threat. Now, he does contradict himself a lot though. For instance, he will unequivocally support Liz Cheney who supports overseas wars but supports Robert F. Kennedy because he does not support overseas wars. To be honest, I've never honestly believed Mr. Olson was anything other than a hypocrite and a false Christian. But that's irrelevant. That the Left-wing agenda is dangerous, is something that I continue to have a lot greater concern about than anything Trump has said or done.

What would it take? What would it take to get me to see that a Trump Presidency should be feared? Okay, here's a good list: Masses of liberals who aren't ghoulishly promoting abortion but at least view it as a tragedy. Masses of liberals who can hold an intellectual conversation with someone who doesn't agree with them on a political issue. Masses of liberals who don't foolishly drift tot the argument that being an orthodox Catholic makes someone a pedophile-supporter. Masses of liberals who have a respectful tolerance for the beliefs of Christians who aren't shouting "HOMOPHOBIA!". Basically, liberals behaving like the opposite of human scum would have me much more inclined to see eye-to-eye with Mr. Olson that a second Trump term would be a very evil thing. Instead, we have just the opposite of that. I'm an independent voter and still undecided. I don't know if I want to vote for Kennedy right now or not. Kennedy has said some good things in the past. Trump had a lot of objectively good policies. What I think America needs more than a President is an exorcism and a mass conversion to orthodox Catholicism.

But I think that Mr. Olson shows overall a significant problem with Evangelicalism today. A lot of Trump's most bitter critics and supporters are among Evangelical Christians and self-described Evangelicals. Evangelicalism, without anything sacred to look toward in the Church, has effectively satiated its lack of the sacred with the sacred within the State. It's a very sad state that Evangelicalism is in. Mr. Olson's posts frequently dunk on the Evangelical Trump-supporters, and safe to say, they aren't listening to him, but he still dunks on them anyway. Never-Trumper Evangelical critics will certainly act like they aren't political but when 9 out of 10 of your posts each week are all about the political state of America and Trump, you don't really give a good impression to an outsider that you are in favor of that. Maybe it's the idea of having a god who responds to Mr. Olson's every call that makes him lose focus on the sacred. That kind of god is being advanced by many Evangelicals nowadays. I don't see much of a future for Evangelicals. For Catholics, apostasies will come and mass conversions will come. With the death of Evangelicalism as it inclines itself more toward replacing the sacred with the political, I think that we might see an objectively good thing for this country in a mass conversion to Catholicism.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose: Review

I had been wanting to watch The Exorcism of Emily Rose for a while and last night, it went on sale via the Apple Store and so I didn't hesitate to get it. I was not disappointed. It is partially a supernatural horror and partially a legal drama with a heavy focus on the question of exorcism and the overlap between the possible realm of the spiritual and the naturalist. The movie ends up pitting the spiritual against the naturalist, the Truth against the lie, and the Church against the State. It is a State that is hostile to the Church that must be convinced of the spiritual reality of the Victory of Christ over the demonic, but the State refuses to see itself as subjected to the demonic. Right from the beginning, we see the spiritual battle unfolding.

The movie opens up right after the death of Emily Rose, the titular character, most of her story will be shown in flashback during the court questionings of the witnesses involved in the story. The priest, Fr. Moore, is at the house and a medical examiner comes in to give his conclusion of cause of death to the officer. The officer then charges Fr. Moore with negligent homicide. It now must be determined who shall prosecute. The prosecution calculates the prosecutor must be a Christian, preferably a Catholic, and that he must be seen as Church-going and friendly toward the Faith. While this is a calculative decision, it is remarkable as to how in the real world such Satanic thinking operates. We are often presented with a "devoutly Christian" politician presented to us by the media who happens to have firm agreements with the faithlessness of the World because it is only under such an appearance of light that Satan could ever deceive us. How many times have we heard the drivel that Nancy Pelosi or Tim Kaine or Joe Biden are "devout Catholics" while they openly oppose every single Church doctrine?

It so happens that the prosecuting attorney picked is a regular Church-going Methodist. A Protestant. The defense attorney is an agnostic with doubts about her own past. And it is in that remarkable mixture that we are presented with the conversion power of the Church over a heresy. Throughout the course of the trial, we see the defense attorney come under both spiritual attack and receive spiritual protection in her own time of need as she becomes more and more open to the idea that there are spiritual powers that we come into conflict with. The priest, Fr. Moore, is more focused on presenting the Truth of the story of Emily Rose and he does not fear being portrayed as a madman.

Throughout the trial, we see the materialistic side presented by the prosecution to prove the case of negligent homicide. When I consider my old Protestant views and how much of it favored the idea of syncretism of the materialistic viewpoint with Christian theology even when both were incompatible, I see the manifestations of the Enlightenment mindset which Protestantism has given birth to. The "man of faith" is ultimately seen as the faithless and the skeptic. It is he who is exposed as the unbeliever. Whereas the agnostic is shown to have much more faith than she even realizes throughout the movie. It is something that many people don't recognize among our current world how faithless those they present as faithful are. It is the Satanic nature of today's world to present as faithful those who oppose the very Faith that is claimed to represent in an effort to undermine the very essence of the Faith. And that is where the real spiritual battle in the movie lies.

The priest, we find, does not intend to defend his own self. He only intends to present what he believes is the Truth. That is the very Truth of the Victory of Christ. He wants to make it known to the jury, not that he is a martyr, but that Emily Rose is a saint. He does not fight the battle but he puts the battle into the hands of God and the saints and lets them fight the battle. The movie also contains quite a theodicy in it where Emily Rose relates in a note to the priest a brief encounter she experiences with the Virgin Mary prior to her death and how it is in that which she ultimately chose to accept her continued sufferings so that others may come to belief.

The movie is based on the real life exorcism of a German girl named Annelise Michel. Annelise Michel was a college student who went through the exact same struggles as Emily Rose. It was presumed by the Church and the clergy that she was possessed and needed exorcism. The overlap between the spiritual and the material was forgotten and she was ultimately left malnourished and died. The priests involved, and her parents, were convicted of negligent homicide by German authorities. But today, the grave site of Annelise Michel is a place of pilgrimage among many German Catholics who even ask for her intercession as a saint. Through the sufferings of Annelise Michel, many have been brought to Faith. I won't reveal the ending of the trial of Fr. Moore in the movie as that would be a spoiler, but I would strongly recommend it. There are scenes that can be frightening so I would not recommend children see it, the theological message is very important.

Why modern day modalist doctrine rejects God's oneness

Divine Simplicity is a doctrine often times brought up to challenge the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity which is believed by all Christians and denied by non-Christians. I go so far to say that because, simply put, without the Trinity, there is no salvation. Not that invincible ignorance might lead to damnation. I cannot make judgments on that as I am not God, but that unless God is Triune, the doctrine of salvation as taught by the Church is incoherent. Christ's Mission on Earth was to defeat Death and Hell and He did exactly that. To those denying that He is Divine in and of Himself, they would posit that a mere mortal could do such. And to those confounding the Persons of the Trinity, well...

A large problem is there is ample literature on Trinitarian doctrine and Trinitarian apologetics and the Church's classical doctrine and teaching are often times buried in the philosophical mumbo-jumbo that modern day anti-Trinitarians accuse Trinitarians of holding. The philosophical mumbo-jumbo about the Trinity in modern day Trinitarian apologetics is rarely seen or observed in classical orthodox dogmatics. That is because that mumbo-jumbo never even occurred to the Church. I see a lot of anti-Trinitarians using the word "Godhead" to refer to the Trinity as if "Godhead" is the same as God or even the famed "Trinity Delusion" website. They mostly respond to the anti-cult hunters and the Trinitarian apologists who are divorced from classical Christian doctrine.

The Trinity Delusion website is a class example. In the article I linked, it enforces modern understanding of the terminology upheld at Nicaea to arrive at the conclusion that the "nature" cannot be a "Who" but a "What". This is echoed strongly among Trinitarian apologists and lends itself to the greatest anti-Trinitarian strawman attack ever. I used to be an anti-Trinitarian and that was the dogma I attacked. But it was not the doctrine taught in historical Christian theology. In fact, in order to understand what Trinitarians mean by "ousia" and "persons" and "beings", a knowledge of the historical controversies has to be gathered. In Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's Introduction to Christianity, he has an entire chapter dedicated to proving the point that the Trinitarian doctrine is built on a graveyard of heresies. It was Sabellians who first used terms such as "ousia" and "persons" and "beings" and this was why the Church was reluctant at first to adopt Nicene orthodoxy.

And that brings us to Sabellians of the modern day who are mostly found among a group called "Oneness Pentecostals". When contending with an upholder of this modern day Oneness philosophy, a variant of modalism which insists that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, much appeal is made to the hypostatic union doctrine. Of course, it is not. Sabellians will say that their doctrine is consistent with Divine Simplicity because they misunderstand the proper Trinitarian theology regarding the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is not a "group" deity nor is the Trinity a conglomeration of "parts" and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not parts of God either. Rather the Father is wholly God, the Son is wholly God, and the Holy Spirit is wholly God. If God was divided into parts, this would violate Divine Simplicity. But God's Oneness is found in His infinitude. Infinity is the only thing which cannot be divided into parts. God is infinite in nature, indivisible in nature, hence, the three persons of the Trinity can never be acknowledged as divided or in parts.

But when confronted, what you will notice with "Oneness theologians" is that they frequently separate the Son from the Father. How else will they get two witnesses (John 8)? How else do they explain the baptism of Christ or the Transfiguration? Either the Son and the Father are two persons or the Son and the Father are two entities which are not united as one together. The Son would have to be a projection created by the Father. This exceeds the hypostatic union doctrine of Chalcedon. While the hypostatic union differentiated between a human nature and divine nature had by Christ, it never denied that Christ was wholly talking as God. There are many places in Scriptures where Christ conceals His deity, but He never denies it. Matthew 24:36 is often times brought up by anti-Trinitarians on both sides and the Church has never accepted the interpretation that it marks Christ as "ingorant". There are many senses of "knowing". In knowing the day and hour, Christ does, but it is not to the benefit of His Mission. He is fully aware of the events that shall lead up to that hour and so He does know the hour. What is not of His earthly Mission is to judge the world. St. Augustine writes: "That He says that the “Father knoweth,” implies that in the Father the Son also knows." (Serm. 97, 1)

Further, St. Hilary of Poitiers elaborates on the text by indicating that "in all cases, in which God declares Himself ignorant, He is not under the power of ignorance, but either it is not a fit time for speaking, or it is an economy of not acting." (On the Trinity, IX) Therefore, we see that it is in the humanity, of being contained in finitude and time, that the Son is not here eternally acting, and therefore confesses not knowing. For is in such that He is not at act that He states His ignorance in figurative language. For both the Arians and the Modalists, the omniscience of the Son is denied outright by this text. And the Modalists have such a perverse view that they will proceed to differentiate the man Jesus Christ from God. But if Jesus Christ is the Father in their theology, then Who was incarnated? And that is where the Modalist position collapses. In essence, in denying that the Son is the Father and yet insisting that Jesus is the Father and the Son, the modern day Modalist or Oneness position gives itself over to philosophical reasonings in a desperate attempt to preserve it's anti-Scriptural theology. And it splits God into two - a man and a god. Oneness doctrine therefore cannot uphold in any matter the doctrine of Divine Simplicity. For their "Oneness" of God is a Jesus that is split into the Son and the Father who are both Jesus but not each other, meaning Jesus has a conversation with Himself, declares Himself His own God, prays to Himself, declares Himself to be His own Son, etc.

Triune Oneness posits the infinitude of God which cannot be divided. The Trinity is not merely a "Godhead". The Trinity is God. And the Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Father is the only true God. The Son is the only true God. The Holy Spirit is the only true God. The Trinity is the only true God. Those statements cannot all be true unless they are wholly, uniquely, God, in and of themselves, and are indivisible. The "Oneness" deity is divided against himself.

Why dispensationalism is not Scriptural

I've been noticing on social media lately, a lot of Christians, particularly Protestant Christians, trying to defend the claims of the State of Israel unconditionally on the grounds of the theology of dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is a philosophy rooted in the more extremes of Protestantism. It is an attempt to take literally all the texts of Scripture that refer to Israel and apply them literally to the "people of Israel". It has gained more ground since the founding of the modern State of Israel. And herein lies the fundamental distinction and the most significant flaw of dispensationalism. Even from a literalist reading of Scriptures, it does not compute. This is why Catholic and Orthodox theologians have never held to such a theological position and why the Reformed Christians in Anglicanism and Lutheranism have also refused to accept the position.

Dispensationalists caricature the historic orthodox position of the Church as "replacement" or "supercessionist" theology, but as one looks through Scriptures, it's actually neither. In fact, it's a theology of the fulfilment of the covenant. The Scriptures are divided into two parts: the Old Testament and the New Testament. But the word "Testament" is generally criticized as a bad translation. The more accurate translation, and what is more revealing, is "Covenant". In Genesis, God made a covenant with Abraham (Gen. 15-17). At the Last Supper, Jesus declared that what His Apostles were drinking was "the Blood of the New Covenant" (Matt. 26:28). Everything in Scripture about God's relationship with humanity centers around the idea of covenants. God makes multiple covenants in Genesis with Noah and with Abraham, and then He becomes a man and makes a New Covenant with the shedding of His own Blood. The Covenant establishes His bond with His people.

When He makes a covenant with Abraham, He promises that Abram will be a father of many descendants and describes the boundaries of their lands, that his descendants will number the stars of the Heavens, and that they will be held in captivity for four hundred years (Gen. 15:4-21). Then, God changes the name of Abram to Abraham and declares that Abraham will be the father of many nations (Gen. 17:7). Abraham is not to be the father of one nation only, but of multiple nations. We can see that there are many peoples throughout the world who confess the name of Christ. God foreshadows an everlasting covenant to be made with the descendants of Abraham. This is not just referring to one nation of Israel or one specific group of people. God's intentions, from the beginning, with Abraham, was to use the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh, to be a light for the whole world.

There are multiple instances where "Israel" is referred to in Scriptures. It is referred to in Scriptures as Jacob the Righteous, the son of Isaac. It is referred to in Scriptures as the Kingdom of Israel. It is referred to in Scriptures as the people of Israel, the people of the Kingdom of Israel. Even dispensationalists have to acknowledge that the modern State of Israel is not a Kingdom but a democratic parliamentary republic. But there are already is a King of Israel according to Scriptures! In the Davidic line of descent, the Messiah is born to the Virgin Mary and becomes King of Israel! Moreover, it is revealed in the fulfilment, that this King was to come, not just to the Hebrews but to all nations. Such was the mission work of Christ. He clarifies that He has come for the Hebrews first, but with full intention to incorporate the Gentiles. This became an early question for the Church (Acts 15:3-21). In this controversy over the question of the circumcision of the Gentiles, the Holy Prophet Amos is referenced, "I will raise up the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down ... [a]nd all the Gentiles who are called by name" (Am. 9:11-12).

So even in the Old Covenant, it is explained that Gentiles were to be included in the promises of Israel! As St. Paul declares, "Now to Abraham and his Seed [Christ] were the promises made" (Gal. 3:16). Those who are included in the promise are of Israel, the Seed of Israel, because Christ is the firstfruits of Resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20). Christ has established Himself as firstborn of a brotherhood and this includes those who find Faith in Christ. Christ establishes Himself as King over all nations in the glory of His Resurrection and the splendor of His Godhood. The Kingdom of Israel, therefore, must be the Church. But St. Paul also recognizes that there is a remnant of Israel according to the flesh.

In Romans 9-11, where many dispensationalists come away with the understanding that their opponents' theology is somehow a "replacement" theology, they miss on key concepts that St. Paul speaks of the remnant of Israel (Rom. 9:27-28). The point is to show that Abraham has descendants according to the flesh, but that the flesh will account for nothing in the judgment from God. Much the same, even Jesus makes note of this in His dispute with the Pharisees where He declares that they are not the children of Abraham but of the Devil (Jn. 8:44). St. Paul is much aware of the statements made by Christ and is making an argument showing that the Gentiles are indeed apart of the Covenant, but how the Covenant is not superceded at all. Ironic that fulfilment theology is often termed "supercessionist" because it is anything but!

When I went to a non-denominational church when I was younger, the pastor once informed us that Paul was a "Jew" and emphasized in his lecture the Jewishness of Paul. I was both disturbed and perplexed. This is because the distinguishing of Judaism and Christianity as a religion nor the ethnic distinction was actually applied. But if we look at Scriptures, we do come across the statements made by St. John that there are Jews who say they are Jews but are of the Synagogue of Satan (Rev. 2:9, 3:9). It is not the replacement of Israel that we are looking at in Scriptures, but the fulfilment of Israel. The writers of the Catholic epistles want us to come away with the understanding that we are indeed correctly called Israel, have the promises of Israel, and are included in that. They cite the Old Testament's references that include the Gentiles in that Covenant and show the intent to incorporate the Gentiles into that Covenant. The Gentiles are restored with the tabernacle of David. That is the Church. Anything that contradicts is actually supercessionist and replacement. Was St. Paul a "Jew"? He was a Jew who was a Jew in reality. But that is because the true Jewish religion is not that of Rabbinic Judaism, but that of the Messianic following of Christ in the Sacrament of the Blessed Eucharist. Both "Christian" and "Jew" is appropriate for Christians are Jews of the New Covenant. Those tied to the Old Covenant stand in rejection of Christ. They deny that Christ came in the flesh and are Antichrist (1 Jn. 2:22, 4:3; 2 Jn. 1:7). Thus, St. John distinguishes between Jews who are of the Synagogue of Satan and practitioners of the true Faith (called Christians).

The word "Christian" was first applied to those who followed Christ as the Messiah by the opponents of Christianity and not by Christians themselves. The first Christians more than likely would have viewed themselves as a sect of Judaism at the time. When we sort through the anachronisms, and understand the texts according to the way the early Christians saw it, we see that they viewed Jewishness far differently than it is understood nowadays, Israel is a Kingdom of which the Church (Ekklesia - gathering) is the standing army, and the Eucharist is the sacrifice. Because many Protestants have rejected that the Eucharist is sacrifice and that Jesus's pouring Himself out on the Cross once and for all is infinitely offered on the Holy Altars, they miss out on this. That's how dispensationalism is arrived at. Because Lutherans and Anglicans haven't dismissed that theology of the Eucharist, they have retained the same views as historic Christianity. Dispensationalism is, effectively, replacement theology because it throws the Gentiles out of the Covenant and replaces the Kingdom of Israel with the modern State of Israel. Dispensationalism, therefore, is heretical.

My view on Fratelli Tutti revisited...

A couple of years ago, I wrote a post about the Pope's encyclical Fratelli Tutti. I think it's healthy to reflect on how one's mind develops over the years toward the search for Truth and whether or not I still actually affirm that there are heresies in it. Overall, the Catholic dogma can be vast and is established and is firmly rooted in its historical tradition. This is what separates Catholicism from Protestantism. Whereas Protestantism undergoes self-criticism through Biblical reflection, Catholic doctrine is guided by historic tradition which roots out novelties of Scriptural interpretation, ever discerning how the Holy Spirit is being listened to. Re-reading my comments on Fratelli Tutti as of today, I can state with confidence that the document is a largely problematic document, but each Papal Encyclical is written to a specific audience, for a specific purpose, at a specific point in time. So I think I should re-look at Fratelli Tutti and reassess the analysis I made on it. Consider the Epistles of the New Testament. Whether written by St. Paul, or St. Peter, or St. John the Evangelist, each one of these are episcopal encyclicals, and the two by St. Peter are Papal Encyclicals! They are dealing with different circumstances in the Church and different contexts. With that said, a proper reassessment of some of Fratelli Tutti's statements can be further explained.

Private Property

On private property, the statement of Fratelli Tutti when compared to other areas of Catholic dogma don't really appear well. I compared Fratelli Tutti's assessment of private property to Rerum Novarum's assessment of private property. This was wrong of me to do so. When read side-by-side, Rerum Novarum seems to contradict Fratelli Tutti. However, Fratelli Tutti never undermines the doctrine of private property and its management in Rerum Novarum. In today's world, where capitalism is often idolized, we tend to also become very much attached to our own private property. While capitalism was a dominant philosophy when Rerum Novarum was written, there was a budding philosophy that many were beginning to take seriously - communism. Communism undermined the value of the human individual and attacked the private property rights' of the given stewards. The fact of the matter is that all property we are given is actually a direct gift of God Who has made us stewards of that private property. This should be understood first when we discuss the question of private property. When reading Fratelli Tutti in full, we should take into account that the importance of Pope Francis's comments on private property is not to undermine the value of private property, but to remind us of the important usage of private property in direction to the common good of men. That's not heretical at all.

Just War

I still maintain that his position on war has always seemed contradictory. But I think there is an important point to consider is that when the Pope is speaking as an advisor on stately matters, he is not infallible. On this matter, when he is advising nations not to seek war, he is certainly speaking on the position of a stately advisor. Even though this is an encyclical, there are aspects that he seems to address toward the world and to his actual sheep. And I think this is a problem with Pope Francis overall. He strikes me as a much more worldly Pope who gets too much caught up in media attention rather than the focus of his flock. In his writings on Just War, this is a prime example. That said, his position that takes on a much more pacifistic approach is a more healthy way for the lay Christian to engage. Reading some of St. Basil's ethics, one finds that there is considerable question as to whether a soldier would be guilty of murder should he kill another Christian in combat. And I think this also requires historical combat. What extent should Christians be involved in wars between countries when we know that we might be killing our own brethren? On a practical matter, as Fratelli Tutti indicates, no war is a far superior position.

Death Penalty

This one is far more shakier. The past few Popes, from John Paul II to Benedict XVI to Francis, have all been hotly against the death penalty. And though past posts in the past have had me unequivocally defend capital punishment, I think St. Mark the Ascetic's position should be taken. When lay Christians bring others to be punished before the state tribunals, those Christians sin. When Christian rulers carry out punishments against criminals, there is no sin committed. According to Romans 13, the state has been given full right by God to wield the sword of judgment. There is a distinction then that should be made. Unfortunately, it's not a distinction that is made by today's moralists. We don't see any effort to make a distinction, but instead, we presume that the call for Christians to seek the end of the death penalty is an inherently unequivocal call for even Christian rulers to cede their God-given authority. That's where things become more ambiguous and more confusing. Because the historical doctrine is that the death penalty can be used by the legitimate authorities without sin, but the current mode of thought is that all Christians are to be against it. And yet, Fratelli Tutti isn't directed at state officials, but to lay Christians. The intended audience of Fratelli Tutti needs to be taken into account. This is not a political advisory statement to officials, even if it was, such political advisory would not be considered infallible. I think the difficulty is that the position is based on philosophical prowess rather than theological prowess.

Equality

While the question of equality really ought to be defined based on what is meant by equality, I think we should look to earlier theological positions of Pope Francis to determine what is meant before making a conclusion. In Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis upholds the traditional hierarchical nature of the Church. What he means by equality then cannot, in any way, be a contradiction to what he has maintained in the past. So we should take a view on equality that is far less absolute. Are we all equal as brothers in Christ through our baptism? Yes. Again, the audience of Fratelli Tutti is not those who are outside of the Church. Therefore, we can conclude that equality is not a heresy.

In full retrospect, I think I may have been too hasty with my statements on Fratelli Tutti in the past and I apologize for those positions. Although I will leave that post up to show what my mindset was back in 2020, I'll leave a link at the bottom to this post so that people can have an idea of how my view on the document has changed. Please don't judge me for any errors in the past. I was deeply affected by Traditionalist circles at the time Fratelli Tutti was written and I think that affected my overall reading of it too.

Love, forgiveness, and reconciliation

I've been slowly reading through Eleonore Stump's massive book, Wandering Through Darkness. Recently, I was in an emotionally abusive relationship. Not so much a significant other as it was with a friend who I thought I might have been in love with at one point. She was incredibly toxic, dismissive of my emotions, and declared me manipulative for trying to communicate with her when I was being stonewalled. I've been told by numerous people that the behavior on her end was far more consistent with gaslighting and projection, that it was not Christlike behavior that was shown toward me, and that I need to stay away from her. I was struggling with whether permanently staying away from her was consistent with forgiveness so I asked a priest who explained that forgiveness does not mean that we cannot set up reasonable boundaries. In such a case where you are dealing with emotional abuse and the other refuses to even self-reflect, it's necessary to abandon the cause.

Reading through Stump's fifth chapter of Wandering Through Darkness, which is introducing concepts to the core of her main argument, she addresses the question of love, forgiveness, and reconciliation through the perspective of Thomistic moral theology. Stump is Thomistic and Augustinian in her theology and has written much addressing concepts in both Thomistic and Augustinian theology. Starting with the core essence of love in Thomism, love is about the desiring of the good of another. That other may not necessarily desire the good for themselves. So when people were telling me that the friendship was toxic, they were acting in love toward me. They desire the good for me. That which is healthy and no emotionally draining. And emotionally abusive relationship, whether it's with parents or with children or with friends or with a significant other, can have real harm on the psyche of the person being abused.

Part of forgiveness though is a desire for reconciliation. But there remains a question as to whether reconciliation is possible or not. Stump addresses this. Reconciliation is the goal of forgiveness under normal circumstances. We may look toward the Parable of the Loving Father where the Father anxiously awaits the return of his son who squandered his entire inheritance. But what if there is a situation where that reconciliation is not possible? What if there is a situation more akin to Pharaoh, who despite all of the plagues and punishments, refuses to repent for his heart has become hardened. We can still forgive someone who is like that. If there is ample reason to doubt that a person's repentance is sincere or genuine, or if the person refuses to repent or seek reconciliation, then we may need to establish healthy boundaries. In the case of Pharaoh, that boundary was determined by his watery grave in the Red Sea.

In the case of an abusive situation on social media or in real life, that may include blocking or filing a restraining order with the other. Often, it is impossible to tell the real reasons why someone has chosen to be emotionally manipulative or abusive. It is impossible to determine whether that someone is sincere. And when there is no self-reflection, or there is constant accusations made by that person against you, the only thing you can do is walk away from the situation. If someone tells you one thing and does another and makes it seem like you are the one being paranoid for wondering why this is happening, that person is not a healthy person to be around or near. I've been around many people like that.

But this goes to the key point that Stump addresses. Reconciliation may not always be possible when it comes to forgiveness. In such situations, only the desire for reconciliation can be maintained. It'd be one thing if I wanted my abuser to stay an abuser, because then I would not be desiring the good for her. It's a much different thing if I acknowledge that reconciliation with my abuser is not possible at the moment because there is no sign that the manipulative behavior has changed. I can walk away from that person comfortably, knowing that I have not failed to forgive them. I desire reconciliation with that person, I just don't know if reconciliation will ever be possible with that person.

Internet rad-trads

So the past few years, when COVID mandate policies forced us into isolation, I delved heavily into the darkness of social media. I would not like to go back to those mandates for any reason whatsoever. I do not think those mandates have created a healthier society, but a society that doesn't know how to interact with each other and have appropriate interactions with one another. We have become eroded as a society where we are willing to exclude one another. That's what people did centuries ago. And I think more appalling to list among those types of people is the Traditionalist Catholics. Catholics in general, but Traditionalist Catholics to be specific. I have noticed in many places Catholic culture is, overall, eroded by social media presence.

When I first learned about "rad-trads", I presumed that people were generalizing all Traditionalist Catholics. Let me be clear, they are not. One of my dearest friends that I acquired from social media went by the moniker "JMF" and was deeply a Traditionalist Catholic. She even brought up criticism of the rad-trads as well. Specifically the rad-trads who are demanding that everyone become chicken farmers. I am aware of more Traditionalist Catholics that have critiqued this position too. Rather than honest reflection, JMF was heavily repudiated and decided to close her Twitter/X account as a result. She was even chided at as not being "Trad".

Based on my few years of interaction with Traditionalist Catholics on Twitter/X, one major takeaway I have is that they confuse their radical traditionalism with orthodoxy. When you first hear criticism of the "rad-trads" online, you might be tempted to think that all Traditionalist Catholics are being condemned. So did I. Traditionalist Catholics just want to be able to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass and honor God the way the saints did. That's not an issue at all. But the "rad-trads" are those who push it completely over the edge. When Pope Francis came out swinging at the "rad-trads" as being rigid, a lot of Traditionalist Catholics were rightly offended and upset about it. But if you are a Traditionalist Catholic like myself, and you see that "rad-trad" group in operation, you begin to understand his point.

I should be clear, most Traditionalist Catholics are Western Rite. I am Melkite. But I think any Catholic who affirms the continuity Tradition and sees Tradition as the basis of orthodoxy is a Traditionalist Catholic. Not to mention, any Catholic who desires the survival of the Traditional Latin Mass in the West is a Traditionalist. Yes, I believe the Novus Ordo Mass is also valid, even if major reform is needed in order to bring it back to the rubrics, but if done properly, there really isn't a need to conflict the TLM with the NO at any rate and the disobedient heretics are those who think the NO replaces the TLM. I have seen more disobedience to their proper ecclesiastical authorities from many of these neo-Catholics who run media places like Where Peter Is and National Catholic Reporter than other spots. National Catholic Reporter was required years ago to remove the word "Catholic" from its name by their own bishop. Yet they'll somehow blast orthodox Catholics as not obeying their bishop? So to be clear, there is nothing wrong with Traditionalist Catholicism in its orthodoxy.

The problem is with a certain group of Traditionalist Catholics who are more than just "orthodox", but are rigid. You might have noticed a lot of posts on the internet contending that Pope Francis was a supporter of abortion, or who communes Nancy Pelosi despite her excommunication. And yet both of these positions couldn't be any farther from the truth! Do you know what each member of the House of Commons looks like, you American? Hey, who's the President of Romania? And yet you expect the Pope, who is originally from Argentina, who is the Head of State of Vatican City, one of the tiniest countries in the world, to know everyone and everything about the entire makeup of the U.S. Congress? Absurd! The Pope has condemned abortion on numerous occasions and there has been no statement from the Pope that has hinted at overturning the excommunication of Nancy Pelosi. On the contrary, the Pope has even indicated in the past that the individual bishops of the United States are to have their authority to excommunicate politicians who support heretical social policies excommunicated.

And that's just one example of rigidity. There are numerous examples of rigidity that can be captured. There is a movement dedicated to the position that suits and ties must be worn in Church. I respect the position that one dresses up for God. But modesty and respect are not necessarily about showiness. Of course, there is nothing wrong with wearing a suit and a tie, but to mandate it as a requirement for all of your churchmen is rigid! Likewise, the war on jeans in church is one of the most ridiculous discussions ever. Why is there so much effort against the wearing of jeans? Are jeans disrespectful to wear? Are they immodest? Or are they just less than slacks? And if it's the last one (which it is), maybe that's not a good war to wage. The fact that there are many rad-trads like this shows the Pope's criticisms of "Traditionalists" (rad-trads) as rigid are actually quite valid.

In the recent past, I once was chided at by a rad-trad for stating that all sexual sin was intrinsically disordered. The charge was that I "diminished the sin of homosexuality". The funny thing is that his charge against me diminished all sexual sins that weren't homosexuality. There is apparently categorization of sins by the "sins that cry out to Heaven" and the "seven deadly sins". That's besides the point. The problem is that both Byzantine moral theology and Latin moral theology are accepted orthodoxies in the Catholic Church. Latin moral theology tends to rank one sin as worse than another sin while Byzantine moral theology ranks one sin as leading to the same damnation as all the other sin. But this is what's most important. What we are looking at is categorization. The sins that cry out to Heaven and the seven deadly sins are sin categories, not individual sins. But is a "rad-trad" really going to call out defrauding workers? You don't see that from the "rad-trads" at all. Further, when you are ranking homosexuality as worse than coercing someone into sexual intercourse with you, there is something fundamentally wrong with your reasoning.

Many other examples of "rad-trad-ism" can be pointed out. But I think if one's interactions with Traditionalist Catholics on the internet is limited to the Fish Eaters forum, one does not come across this segment of Traditionalist Catholicism. Vox Clamatis has historically done a quality job preventing dissemination of conspiracy theories (like the notion that there was an impostor Sr. Lucy) because there has been tremendous backlash against "rad-trads" who have rightfully been seen as conspiracy theorists. If your only interaction with Traditionalist Catholics online has been in a forum like that, you might see a lot of in-fighting and squabbling among us Traditionalists one week, but then the next week, we're all brothers again. Hopefully, we can bring that forum back to life again. Right now, it's down. But it's important to point out that people are not talking about those people when they criticize "rad-trads". They are not talking about JMF when they criticize Traditionalist Catholics.

The identification of the True Cross

When the Empress Helen discovered the sacred relic of the True Cross, it was not known as to which one the one in which Christ was crucified on was. Helen led the excavation team which found the three crosses. One was the True Cross and the other two were the ones that the thieves alongside Christ had been crucified on. During the crucifixion, at the earthquake, the footbeam on the True Cross had been twisted to reveal the judgment of the two thieves. One to Heaven and the other to Hell. The True Cross had been made with three types of wood, fashioned like that together in order to reveal the Holy Trinity. Having established with Faith that the Cross was the one with the plaque indicating that Jesus was the King of the Jews, St. Helen wanted to confirm this before all.

As a funeral procession was meandering by, the Empress proclaimed the finding of the Cross to the Holy Bishop. The Bishop wanted to test this great finding. For years, the Pagans had attempted to cover up the Cross with shrines and temples dedicated to their gods hoping that when Christians would pay homage to Christ, they would actually be rendering homage to the deities of the ancient Romans. But such was a laughing case. When homage is paid to God, it is done to Him, even in the presence of the wicked. The Bishop now saw that the temples of these demons had been desecrated. Could this really be the True Cross? Indeed, he called for the funeral to be paused and the crosses to be brought forward.

One by one, the crosses touched the dead man. The first cross touched him and nothing happened. The second cross touched him and nothing happened. The True Cross, the one proclaimed to be the True Cross by the Empress, touched him and the dead man came alive. The True Cross, which grants resurrection and life to all for Life itself was hanged upon the wood of that Cross, brought the dead man back to life as it does for all of us who are dead to sin. This was a joyous moment and the Jew who had helped Helen find the Cross declared that he was now in allegiance with Christ and accepted baptism. He would eventually become a bishop of the Church too during the reign of the Apostate Emperor Julian.

The Cross remained in the possession of the Christians for many years until it was seized by the Persians hoping to demoralize the Christians. This did nothing to demoralize the armies of the Romans. For the Emperor Herakleios would lead his men to reclaim the property that was rightly of the Christian Faith. Marching into Persia, the Emperor reclaimed the Cross for the glory of the Lord and took it back to the Empire. But it was not to remain there, for it was better that the Cross be returned to Jerusalem where Our Lord was crucified. The Emperor would carry it.

But in Jerusalem, on that path of blessed suffering which the Lord marched on, the Emperor felt a heavy weight upon him. He was strong enough himself to carry the Cross. There was no issue with his physique. But an angel had pinned him down, preventing him from carrying the Cross. The Bishop would discern what was happening and told the Emperor that unless he humbled himself as Christ had humbled himself, he would not be able to enter into the Holy City where the Lord was crucified. Tossing away his imperial garb, the Emperor put on rags like a beggar and carried triumphantly the Cross of Christ, back to its original place where it would stand.

So let us humble ourselves and attach ourselves to that Cross which grants us life. Let us walk with humility, a living sacrifice to God. And let us glorify the Holy Trinity forever!

I haven't been here in a while

I have not been posting here in a while. I took a break from blogging here, because, truthfully, I wanted to try things out as a different person. That did not go well at all. I wanted to hide myself away from past mistakes. But that does not work at all. I cannot hide from that past or from that filth. I can only pray that people love me and will forgive me for whatever sins and failures I have committed. You may have heard of someone called "Autistic Catholic". That was me. That was my moniker. That is who I am now. I am no longer "newenglandsun". But "Autistic Catholic" has the same exact character flaws as "newenglandsun" did. Only that "Autistic Catholic" was able to get the things that "newenglandsun" didn't get. And getting those things that "newenglandsun" didn't get turned "Autistic Catholic" into a monster.

I have found more emotional abuse in the past year and a half getting the things that "newenglandsun" didn't get than emotionally worthwhile friends. That might be only partially true. I found some very decent friends as Autistic Catholic and made friends that I might not have had if I wasn't. And I think I have found very good and decent friends as Autistic Catholic that I could have also found as newenglandsun if I had genuinely wanted to. And the people who didn't want to be friends with newenglandsun to begin with were probably the ones who eventually turned on Autistic Catholic anyway. It was an interesting experiment for about one and a half years actually allowing myself to admit that I was autistic.

I found that Catholics on social media really like the idea of an autistic person speaking on behalf of the Faith. What they don't like is when that person begins to show more and more character traits associated with autism. I learned a lot of Catholics on social media claim to be empathetic toward autistic people, but turn their backs when character traits associated with autism become more obvious. There is a mixture of welcome and a mixture of hostility toward the autistic community. Spiritual warfare is not seen as a cause by some of these people as a source of problems for autistic people online, but only the exclusively autistic problems. If an autistic person is attacked for being autistic, many of these Catholics will attempt to instruct an autistic person defending that person's dignity as being "Woke" or "playing victim".

I think a lot of this has to do with the failure of Catholic culture on social media in general. I've encountered hostility on Facebook, Instagram, X, etc. Catholic culture on social media should not be seen as representative of the Church. There is a statement made by St. John Henry Cardinal Newman about how the Barque of St. Peter is a truly magnificent ship if you refrain from entering into the boiler room. Too many online Catholics want to step into the boiler room. One of the most recurrent problems in Catholic culture today is a mass of bishops who want to lead their sheep directly into the boiler room. Whether they are disobedient liberals who reject Church Teaching or are the "Rad-Trad" pastors who are relentlessly lamenting about how the Church is persecuting them.

I've been called a hypocrite by Catholics on social media many a times. I've been called a hypocrite once by a woman who claimed she would promote each of my blog posts (she never did because she was a liar). I might very well be a hypocrite. I have to get the plank out of my own eye before getting the speck of sawdust out of my neighbor's eye. The thing is that many sins I've committed have been done directly in my interactions on social media and my brethren there have never given me a chance to display my fruits. I have complained about the double-standards. If I were to block someone on X, I'd be accused by Catholics of "holding a grudge". A person who blocks me is "defining boundaries". Of course, I've felt constantly held to the position of being the one who figures out what those boundaries actually are, rather than them clearly being defined. That was my latest negative interaction on X.

It's always the same scenario. I was once told I was being bullied by a woman by another woman who said that she would block the woman who was bullying me. That woman never did that. She went on continuing being mutuals with the other woman until I finally challenged her trustworthiness and brought up that statement. I was blocked. The woman currently has a backup account and where she mutually follows the woman she said she would block and who was "not a good person". She claims what she did to me was "merciful". It was anything but. It's an expected demand that I be a mind-reader in social interactions. That woman knew and understood autism but apparently did not understand that if definable boundaries are not set, I'm not going to have a clue if I'm expected to be a mind-reader.

There were too many interactions like that. I quit. My mental health improved. Honestly, I don't think I will ever go back. One of my dear friends on X though is @fifth_wife (Katherine Howard). She has been a faithful friend almost since the beginning of my tenure on X, even when she thought I was a girl. I have never seen anything from her that has not been unwholesome. I have told her that if she ever converts to Catholicism, I want her to be my goddaughter. I'm referring to people who are exclusively on X though. Not people who I still communicate with via another media form.

I've been looking at my stats here and I might try and blog here more often seeing as people are apparently still viewing this website, even in my absence. I don't recall ever getting that much traffic while...not blogging!

The Holy Empress Theodora

The Holy Empress Theodora's life parallels that of the Empress Irene's in the Church's struggle for orthodoxy over the heresy of iconoclasm. Like Irene of Athens, Theodora was brought before the Emperor as part of a bride show. The Emperor Theophilos, like the Emperor Leo IV, was an iconoclast and Theodora was an iconophile. She had been raised an iconophile by her mother Theoktiste and her mother taught her daughters, in secret, the proper veneration of icons. The Emperor Theophilos, who would severely punish, banish, and even branded two monks with iconoclastic texts on their foreheads. Both the Emperor's stepmother who had arranged the bride show, and the Empress's mother, were iconophiles and they recognized the risks, but the orthodoxy had to prevail somehow. The Emperor's stepmother, Euphrosyne, was herself, a descendant of the Holy Empress Irene, a daughter of the Emperor Constantine VI, who was killed for his treacheries against his mother and his heresies of iconoclasm.

The Empress Theodora bore five daughters and two sons to the Emperor Theophilos. One son died in infancy and one daughter died at a young age as well. She would see five children live into adulthood. Michael III would succeed his father on the throne. The marriage was carried out some time around the year 830. Theophilos would discover his wife and their daughters venerating the icons at some point and she fiercely denied that they were icons but insisted instead that they were "dolls". The Emperor is furious about this iconodulist incident occurring in his courts and he orders that the practice cease. Theodora continued the practice of continuing to see her mother and her mother-in-law in private with her children, continuing to raise her children in the orthodoxy of the Second Council of Nicaea. Theophilos would be infected with dysyntery around the age of 29. Much like the Emperor Leo IV was covered in tumors and perished from disease, so God brings disease to call men to repentance. Unlike Leo IV, Theophilos would repent of his sins. Theodora recorded his repentance and presented it to the church seeking a pardon for his iconoclasm. Indeed, as the Patriarch Methodios recorded the names of the iconoclasts and presented them on the altar of Hagia Sophia, the Emperor Theophilos's name would disappear from the list. In Theophilos's case, his dysyntery would bring his mortal body to an end but it called his soul to repentance that it may soon be filled with eternal life.

Theodora ordered a council held which re-established the faith of the Second Council of Nicaea. This council was held on the First Sunday of the Great Lent that year. Because of this, Greek Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians always celebrate the Feast of the Holy Sunday of Orthodoxy to mark the beginning of Lent. This is not the only imperially established Feast Day on the Church's calendar either. As part of this celebration, the Empress Theodora removed the remains of the iconoclast Emperor Constantine V, the father-in-law of Empress Irene, and had the remains burned. In turn, the remains of the Empress Irene were brought back from Prinkipio and restored to the imperial burial place (Women in Purple, 213). This act further showed the triumph of the iconophiles as the Empress Irene was the one who convened the Second Council of Nicaea, keeping her iconodulist faith hidden from her husband during his briefly lived reign, much as Theodora had to keep her iconodulist faith hidden from her husband as she taught her children to venerate icons.

The Empress was also strong in her leadership.

"She also stood up to the caliphs, according to one historian Bar Hebraeus, who reports that the Arabs thought they could take advantage of a widowed Empress and her young son. 'Seeing that it was a woman who ruled the country, the Arabs regarded Roman homage with contempt and broke the peace. Then Theodora the Queen sent an army against Cicilia in AD 861 and enslaved all the country of the Anazarbos.' There follows the account of an Arab ambassador, a eunuch named Nashif, when the queen offered to make peace but demanded 20,000 Christian prisoners of war in exchange for the 20,000 captured Arabs. When Nashif tried to take them anyway, 'Theodora killed them.'" (235-236)

She also did not hesitate to prosecute the Paulician heresy that was running rampant in the Eastern Empire, persecuting approximately 10,000 of the adherents of this heresy.

Sadly, she did not spend too much time in dedication to her son's education and he was known as "Michael the Drunkard" during his reign. Much like Irene, whose son Constantine VI was a poorly educated and stupid soul, so too was Michael III. Unlike Constantine VI, Michael III would not embrace the iconoclast heresy. But due to his poor ruling, he would ultimately be assassinated by Basil I. Theodora would witness the beginning of the reign of her son's assassination. Having lost the regal authority of being the Dowager Empress, she would not be buried with her husband. Instead, she makes indication to her daughters to be buried beside her mother in Gastria, where her mother lived as a monastic (234). The life of this saint is one of elevation from nothingness to preservation of the faith, to the loftiest of worldly elevations, and then a return back to her own lowly position. But worldly elevations are meaningless for a saint. The glory of an imperial burial might not have been for her but she had in the stead a saintly and holy burial, reaching the end of her life February 11, 867. Though some sources are conflicted and state that her death was in 856 (Thornton, Pious Kings and Right-Believing Queens). This is perhaps why Otto of Freising is also confused as to when to date the assassination of Michael III. It is presumable that the latter date seems most accurate. St. Theodora, Empress Regent and Dowager Empress of the Roman Empire who restored the veneration of icons to Christendom, pray for us!

See also:

Dictionary of Saintly Women, Agnes B.C. Dunbar

Women in Purple: Rulers of Medieval Byzantium, Judith Herrin

St. Synkletike

St. Synkletike was one of the many Desert Fathers who taught on varying ascetical disciplines. Her teachings were recorded by one who wrote under the name "Athanasius". Synkletike's name means "assembly". She was born to prominent parents and had a sister and two brothers were of like mind in both virtue and faith with her. Synkletike, known for her beauty, was visited by many suitors who desired to marry her. But she desired not these suitors nor the vain praise of these men. She fled from them and ended up in a women's monastery. Pseudo-Athanasius compares her to St. Thecla for both were betrothed to Christ and both had the same St. Paul as their bridal escort.

She shunned the vanity of expensive clothes and lived to the fullness of her own ascetical teachings, never engaging in hypocrisy. She also practiced the discipline of fasting with faith and diligence. She practiced it so well that fasting became a source of her own physical health. When she ceased from fasting, she would wither and grow gaunt.

Having fled the secular life and from marriage, she would become very influential in the monastic life among her fellow sisters teaching on various sorts of ascetical disciplines. She would teach on fasting, controlling the mind in its combat against sinful passions, and on voluntary poverty. She taught regularity in fasting was important and that the mind should be guarded from even the worst and most sinful of thoughts for sin begins first and foremost in the mind. Poverty was an evil unless it was pursued voluntarily and riches were given up voluntarily. The Church's teaching is thus opposed to socialistic doctrines which seeks to center the government as a coercive force to commit itself to an illusion of caring for the poor.

During the end of her life, this most beautiful soul was attacked by Satan. According to Pseudo-Athanasius's description of the events, the Devil started to attack her for he envied her beauty. Having failed to lure her away from her virginity, she was then subjected to what was likely a malignant mouth cancer. Her face began disfiguring and she began to stink so much that the foul stench drove the nuns away from her own cell. She would deteriorate like this until her repose. For her sufferings and her teachings, she is commemorated among the Desert Fathers and Mothers. She is venerated on January 5 in the Greek Church. St. Synkletike, pray for me!