Jo Cox and Charlier Kirk - a reflection...

The past couple days, I have had trauma triggered...as mentioned before, while I may have been more political in the past, I've become less and less political lately. And I didn't really become interested in political affairs in general until 2016 to begin with. But in 2016, I had a long-distance relationship with a woman in England. She got involved in politically campaigning for the "Bremain" position. When Jo Cox was brutally and senselessly murdered, I remembered just being in fear for her safety. She's my ex-girlfriend now but if you have unconditional love for someone, that love never fades away entirely and that fear at the time is still there. I had wanted her out of politics...not to mention, the campaign was exhausting to her and severed time to actually communicate with her. It's the feeling that someone you love may not be safe. For a lot of us, we may look at the assassination or the death of a celebrity as a one-off blip on the radar, but for others it hits close to home.

I had been reflecting on this a bit and noticed that progressive blogger Fred Clark wrote an article about what he learned from the murder of Jo Cox. I decided to read it thinking he had some reflections to make about how both of these events felt personal to him, but I gave up hope upon reading through the article. It's entirely a politicization of two human lives that were wrongly and senselessly taken from us now being used as political football. Though we tend to be simplified into right and left in this world, people are a lot more complicated, and the world is a lot more complicated, to define someone as being on a linear model. I think I might mention that when I end up writing a different reflection that's non-political next week. But Fred Clark seems to see the lack of rallying toward "Bremain" in the end as a reflection of non-empathy of the right and his overall understanding of human nature is completely lacking.

It's not like we go from shedding the stain of original sin by becoming "right-wing" or "left-wing". We are subjected to the tyranny of the Devil due to the sin of our first parents and can only be set free by Christ. A true and genuine encounter with Truth and with Love. Being a member of an earthly political party does not free us because Christ's Kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). Adopting someone's politics does not indicate how empathetic we are toward someone either. Political assassinations didn't originate back in 2016, they've been a thing for quite a while and it doesn't matter what the earthly group is, as long as people are subjected to the tyranny of the Devil, some will confuse that tyranny as freedom, embrace it, and act out on it. Both the murderers of Jo Cox and Charlie Kirk acted out on that.

Another thing I should note is that a lot of people seem to think social media is a good indicator of where the world's at. Social media is nothing but a lot of anger amplified. It tends to be anger that gets likes, that gets praised, and that gets one's voice heard. It's awful, but it's true. As such, the wicked in all parties get amplified and we tend to think the other is out to get us. Common sense doesn't exist anymore. Moderation doesn't exist anymore. If someone doesn't support COVID lockdowns, it's not because they find the loss of freedom and interpersonal connection too great a price to pay for an unknown number of lives, if any, to save. It must be because they want everyone to die or they deny the reality of the virus. And so people are villainized for having entirely human concerns.

Empathy is not the same as sympathy and people who emphasize the need to show empathy often do not show any empathy whatsoever. Empathy is not about discarding rational thought and simply just agreeing with someone's politics. I never really paid any attention to Charlie Kirk to be honest and never knew Jo Cox. But the horror of losing a father of two kids or a mother of two kids, that's unfathomable. I'm fine not accepting and seeing eye-to-eye with these people on everything. That doesn't mean I lack empathy. Empathy is the ability to understand the sufferings of another from an outward position, namely that of not having the experience. Compassion is partaking in those sufferings and sympathy is having concern for another experiencing suffering. While I have not shared the experience of losing someone close to me due to political violence, I certainly shared the fear of losing someone I loved to political violence. Jo Cox was doing something similar to Charlie Kirk when she was murdered. She was going to hear from her constituents. Charlie Kirk, even if you didn't agree with his politics, introduced to academia methods of discourse and ways to build up stronger arguments for and against particular positions. I think that's important to remember. He was murdered trying to get kids of all political positions involved in a discussion.

Empathy does not mean I have to agree with you. Empathy is about sharing in another's emotional experience from an outward position. Empathy isn't something political. It's something human. It's something that flows from the image of God. Empathy is an act of love. It does not mean I have to share your beliefs if they are inconsistent with the image of God. Empathy does not discard rationality. I don't know if this is something that neurotypicals just don't get or if they just skirt over and don't have empathy in general - which is something odd because it is usually neurodivergents who are accused of lacking empathy. Empathy actually demands rationality in order to process and to provide necessary help. I grieve for Brendan Cox and I grieve for Erika Kirk. I grieve for them because we are one with the human race and two humans were brutally and senselessly murdered by people who hated their spouses' politics. That should not happen. While emotionally driven people would discard their viewpoints and use this to adopt to their views, that is not the same thing as empathy. That is conversion. My opinion is that I should only convert to a person's viewpoints if I believe them.

Political violence is horror and I am sorry for people like Fred Clark who cannot empathize with the brokenness of the human race and feel a need to score political talking points for their team. That goes back to what I talked about yesterday with our desire to dominate and displace God. I also am sorry for people who think the murder of Charlie Kirk should be used to have people come over to their side as if the "other guys" somehow plotted it. The rhetoric on both sides needs to calm down. While the neo-conservative media tends to dominate the discussion and tends to stoke the fire more, nobody ordered that Brexiteer to brutally murder Jo Cox and nobody ordered a sniper to fire at Charlie Kirk. These people made their own decisions and gave themselves over to a cult of demons.

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.

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.

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 distortion of reality

I mentioned in my last post that there is a distorted reality that often overcomes me from my depression. What is the first distortion of reality? The spiritual and the mental often times overlap because the psyche is the soul. Psyche which is the root of the words "psychiatry" and "psychology" is a Greek word that refers to the soul. The Hebrews called this the lev. The word lev refers to the heart. While the lev is a part of the nephesh and the neshema, the latter two are found in other animals but the lev is unique to the human being. It gives the human being a rational thought and an inclination for the Divine that is lacking in the animal nature. Man alone was created in the image of God. While all of creation testifies of the ability of God and praises Him in some way or form and they will partake in the redemption of the New Creation, Man alone is made for a Divine Communion with God. Man alone has an inheritance to partake in the Divine Nature.

When Man was created in the Garden of Eden, he was created to dwell in perfection and immortality. God had gifted Man with His own perfect likeness. They could eat of all the fruit in the Garden save for the one that grew from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The serpent slithered along its belly and told the woman that the reason why God had told them not to eat of that tree was because Man would become exactly like God. This was not what God taught them nor was it what the Church teaches. God had already made Man in His own likeness. There was no benefit from eating the tree in becoming like God because Man was already like God! But the serpent insisted that Man was not like God, that they needed the tree to become like God. The serpent had already begun distorting reality by denying that Man was created in the image of God.

From the first sin onward, Man threw his entire relationship with God into discontinuity and distortion. Creation became disordered and suffers until its final redemption. Yes, creation shall be redeemed when the world is made anew (Rom. 8:19-23). When Man is brought back into harmony with his Creator, so will creation be brought back into harmony. The consequences of the first sin, the acceptance of a distorted reality that never was, threw creation and Man into a drastic imbalance. We see this imbalance at play in the mental health impact upon the world. Because the psyche is the one aspect of Man that is so directly and intimately connected to God, the imbalance caused by the first sin is shown forth in the negative impact of mental health. This is why Man experiences things such as boredom, depression, anxiety, anger. We are impacted by our ancestors' first sin and thrown into confusion and imbalance, the despair of being severed from the communion with our Creator which is what was intended from the beginning.

Striving to reconnect with our Creator, we go about with all these different sorts of distorted realities, influenced by the lie of the serpent, thinking we can reach Him entirely of our own willpower and volition. But we need Him to free us and free us He does for His offer of grace is free to us. We are already intimately connected to Him because we possess the image and likeness of God but we are severed from Him by our participation in and acceptance of a distortion and a lie. We are thrown into confusion by the Devil's forked snake-tongue. We give into the unreality. Our hearts know that it is True what He offers to us but our weakened psyche often times forces us into accepting this distorted reality, giving into the passions of the flesh, because we are both spiritual and physical beings, meant for communion with God, but bound to accept the adversities of the flesh. As St. Paul himself states, "the evil that I do not want is what I do" (Rom. 7:19).

This entire fleshly life is a trial for the psyche. It is not that the flesh is not a good, for the flesh is an earthly vessel for the psyche and it is the Temple that God intended to House the psyche in. But the flesh has suffered from the corruption of the Fall. It is bound to death and destruction, crying out to its Creator to be resurrected back to Life in glory and there is the Hope of the Resurrection (1 Cor. 15:42-49). We are not bound to sufferings, but we are bound to trials and adversities. We live in a distortion of the image of God, but we live in the hope that the image of God will be restored in immortality for Christ Himself was raised from the dead to prove this! As I mentioned in my first post in this series, when experiencing an episode of depression, I find myself in a distorted reality. The sun may be shining but the motivation to do anything is gone, non-existent, and it seems to be raining all around. The sin that has bound Man to this distortion of his spirit and flesh is based on a distortion of reality. A denial that Man was made in the image of God and the promotion of the lie that something other than God could give this gift to Man. Man turned himself over to Satan in the Garden of Eden. Man turned himself over to a liar. And from this, we live in the consequences until we participate in the ultimate healing in the Resurrection of Our Lord.

The rain fell and the sun was shining

He was lying in the bed as the rain came down all around outside. He wanted to go for a run and as he walked to the door, the sun was shining. As he reached the door, the water fell from the sky all around, the grey clouds dominated the sun, taking over in their battle for the sky. The sun was shining bright outside but he could not go because it was pouring wet with rain. It was too dark, too damp, too wet. How could he find motivation for anything? For life? He wanted to sulk back into the cocoon, seeping deep underneath the covers of his blanket. It felt as if something heavy was crushing him. He could barely breathe. He curled up into fetal position and began to scream for help, wondering if this time, he would be heard.

This had been his entire adult life from the graduation of high school all throughout university and beyond. But it had really increased during university. There were things his heart wanted to believe but his brain would not let him. There was a beautiful reality but his mind did not want to accept. While the sun was shining, his mind insisted that the sky was playing tricks on him. It was really raining. What is this depression we are thrown into consistently? Why do some people have to go through a literal Hell on Earth? He took out the razors again, wondering if the physical pain would diminish the interior pain. Or perhaps someone would notice and take pity on him. He wanted someone in his life. He was alone. Someone he could just rest his head on for a change. Where could he find someone like that?

He had been locked in an unreality for so long. Forced onto social media to find friends because he couldn't cling to anyone in real life. After high school, his old friends dispersed. Most of them just remembered him as that quirky weird guy who told conspiracy theories about the Catholic Church or that guy who had all these different outbursts. How would anyone recognize him as the convert he was now? Even if he could reconnect with them, they'd be in disbelief at who he was at least attempting to become. They would consider him out of his mind. He didn't really talk to anyone at church. He tried, but most people were going about their lives. Such are things in the deep suburbs. If it isn't work, it's sleeping from exhaustion. People connect with people who are closer to them in physical difference, no one wants to drive out an hour's length to connect with someone it seems.

Of course, even the people on social media aren't enough. Even they could not withstand his outbursts. Blocked, unfriended, unfollowed by mutuals. Was there ever any hope of retaining any such friendships both real or in the online world? Probably not. We don't always see what's behind someone's sufferings. We assume everything is great, everything is perfect. Perhaps she can shed some light on all of the brokenness hidden behind. There she is, perfect and beautiful. She is the most beautiful soul he has ever met. Perhaps if the Theotokos hadn't overtaken her before, she would have been the most beautiful woman who ever walked the earth. She gives him a shoulder to rest his head on. She smiles at him and listens to him. She cares about him and her own children. She looks at him as one of her own children. And yet deep down, even she is fighting a battle.

People are not perfect, despite their outward experiences. They wrestle with dragons that are far more terrible than the myths and legends of the romance world. These dragons try to pry their lives from them. How is it that the richest nations can experience so many psychologically and clinically depressed people? We can provide, we have jobs, but there is something missing from our lives. Like an incomplete puzzle, missing a piece. Children are starving across the world, being forced into grueling labors against their wills, but depression hits at the richest of nations. Because in spite of our wealth, we have chosen to feign relationships across. We have refused to accept our fleshly kin. We have our friends in real life but we have forgotten to talk to them in anything other than, "LOL", "TTYL", "ROTFL", "TBH", "IMO", and several other choice smiley face emojis. We have been programmed for the age of electronic communication and deceived into thinking that reality has been usurped. But our friends are right before our eyes. Someone cares deeply for us as a son, someone cares deeply for us as a mother, someone cares deeply for us as a father.

The sun is shining...but the rain continues to fall. But the sun is shining so the rain must not be real.

Loss, grief, confusion

One of my dear friends writes lovely poetry on two different blogs, both of which I have linked in my blogroll on the side of my page. Though she has disclosed her name to me in private for the sake of including it in my prayers, most of you who have encountered her probably know her affectionately as "Rae". We first encountered each other through our shared experiences in the autistic community. Though she does not have autism, she does have close family members with autism. I also bear autism as a cross. It creates a multitude of confusion, especially with social interactions. I often have a difficult time forming and making friends because of my experiences. It is difficult for people to communicate with me as a result. For those who bear this cross or know close family bearing this cross, it is difficult to see their sufferings.

Her last poem is exceptionally beautiful. I recommend reading it several times. It is about our venturing around in this world. We find ourselves wandering around in darkness, yet as we bear this baptismal garment, there is for Christians a light that remains with us at all times. We cannot hope to fully know God in this life for our minds are too feeble to understand that infinite goodness that He is. We can only begin to grasp. Yet for Christians, we return to Him. We return to the home He has prepared for us. When we return, we will experience the full fruits of our labors. Though we are often times in confusion, pain, and suffering, we will be eternally glorified, partaking in the Divine light that shines through us, even if dimly for now.

Though this poem can be applied to all of our sufferings, she mentions that she wrote it for a woman who experienced the loss of her child and husband on the same day. One of the many crosses that are given out is that of grief. We experience and deal with grief so differently. Yet for those who are bound to the Resurrection, there remains a flicker of hope. We may not see this hope clearly in the losses that we have been inflicted with, but the hope does indeed prevail. There are many examples in Christian tradition of those who have been wounded with grief, but a particular woman in the history of Christianity comes to my mind whom this poem applies so well to.

St. Cleopatra was a widow of a Roman officer, living in Egypt, during the time of the Holy Martyr Varus. She had witnessed firsthand the sufferings of Varus. He was also a Roman officer and a Christian. Cleopatra was moved by his sufferings and also extended compassion for him as he had shared the position of her deceased husband. When he was killed, she pleaded for his relics so that she could honorably bury them, stating that her husband was an officer and that she wanted to bury his relics honorably. St. Varus was not her husband, but she took his relics and gave them honorable burial, building a Church for him. Cleopatra gave herself in devotion to the Holy Martyr from that point on.

Now Cleopatra had one son named John. Once, when praying, she asked the Holy Martyr Varus to give to her son that which was beneficial in the eyes of God. Her son, who was at an age to be enlisted into the army, became ill shortly afterward and died. In her grief, being hit with the loss of her son, she cursed at the Holy Martyr whom she had honorably buried and devoted herself to all this time. Experiencing confusion from her grief, she could no longer see what was beneficial to her son. She was losing faith from this experience. It was the Holy Martyr who appeared to her in a vision then, with her son at his side. She beheld her son in the glory of Heaven, crowned with a wreath and standing next to the martyr. Varus offered her son to her but pleaded that she would reconsider having now seen her son basking in the radiant glory of eternity. Cleopatra was called back to faith in this moment and allowed her son to remain in eternity. She would enter into eternal rest with Varus and John soon.

This life is incomplete. I grieve most for those who can only see this earthly life. Often times we want to curse at God because most of the time, we only see a tangled mess. We see ourselves apart from God, distant from God, plagued with dark and depressive thoughts, sometimes blasphemous, wondering if someone will ever lift these from us. We can always ask that the burden be made lighter, but much of the time, it is the things we overcome that make us great. I have heard how Samwise is the "true hero" of J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. Frodo gave into temptations and Samwise pulled him aside, always directing him onward. We all have spiritual directors in this life who aid us in our lives. But it is not what our directors overcome that lead us to Heaven. They are helping us overcome our temptations. Frodo is at the helm of it all, bearing the ring. He is suffering the deepest conflict of all the Hobbits and all of the characters. He is tasked with the greatest burden of all. This is what makes Frodo the hero. If God were to take away our temptations, our sufferings, what triumph would we experience when they were finally thrown down. This is why a Christian should not fear death, for in death, we enter into the most splendid of eternal rest.

Much like St. Cleopatra, we have our moments where we become angry toward the God we love wondering why He has weighed us down with such a heavy burden, why He has taken away those we love so dearly. But as we wrestle through this, as we continue to see only the tangled mess of the incomplete tapestry, as we see through the glass darkly, we come to realize there is beauty in our sufferings. Whatever your cross may be, whether it is dealing with developmental disorders or standing by a loved one as they experience a battle to overcome their developmental disability, or if it is the loss of a loved one as was thrown upon the woman my friend wrote her poem for or even St. Cleopatra, or maybe your cross is something different, we all struggle through this life. But we remain connected to Him through His touch. We come to touch His grace in the sacraments. He provides warmth for us when a friend lights a blessed candle for us. He lifts our burdens when we confess our sins to Him and receive His grace in the sacrament of reconciliation and He fills us with His grace once more when we partake of the Holy Eucharist. This touch remains with us, even should He appear most distant at times.

Why are the icons angry?

It was during Lent. I know I had a lot of baggage on me. That subdeaconess gave off an aura which just didn't agree with me. I don't know why she was liked by so many people and they seemed to blame me for my failure to like her in response. I just couldn't bring myself to talk to her. I had other sins that I had fallen back into since deciding to convert. I longed to have my confession heard but that was only for Christians. Sure, I go to Church regularly, but I don't decide whether to become a Christian. It's the Church that decides that. I might believe the doctrines but that doesn't make me a Christian. God makes you a Christian and if the Church allows you, you get to be one. But the Church was not allowing me.

I looked at the icon of Christ and saw a fierce scowl. Why does He scowl in anger at me? I know I've done a lot wrong but I've been trying to make it right. The Reader was in the nave at this time and I asked him why the icons are so angry. Why is this icon of Christ so furious? He said that it looked more expressionless, possibly stern as Christ the Teacher rather, to him. But the icons still looked angry, inflamed with rage toward me. I asked another lady why the icons were so furious. She said she never noticed the way they looked before. Have I not tried my best to serve God all my life yet when it comes to such exterior circumstances beyond my control He is to turn away in anger and hostility?

For a while, I tried to fix everything that was broken about me on my own thinking that it would earn His grace and yet still I remained on the outside of the Church. I didn't know what religion or faith I had held to when people asked such question of me. I went through the motions. I attended Church, I asked about becoming a Catholic numerous times, yet there seemed less and less of a benefit. I began to despair more severely and the anger in the icons remained. Have I not done everything in my power to change the situation? Do I not believe the right things? Do I not attend Church faithfully? Yet the reward appears for those who seem to desire it the least.

I hate talking about my conversion. It fills me with pride. I was ill-treated and pushed to the side. People aren't supposed to break into the Church. I worry often if I made demands of God. It was a time of confusion and often times, I am shocked I stuck it out so long. I ponder if the Church had shut itself down like it did last Spring before I was confirmed in the orthodox Catholic faith, should I even be a Christian at this point? I hesitate to say yes. The Church's officials have scandalized me so severely, I may have taken this as a sign from God that He desired me not. Are not conversions moments of joy? One goes from a worse state to a much better state, being filled with God's grace. Yet this conversion seems to have left me in perpetual doubt. How did I come to this faith suffering so much abuse from such an holy church?

I have fallen into much sin and temptations. I am stirred with anger and pride. How to humble myself? I ask for strength in my weakness. No. There were no demands made of God. You were left in delusion intentionally but look, you have been rescued. These abusers, these mockers, can do you no harm because you hold onto your baptismal garment. Those who pray for you faithfully, they are building up a store for you in Heaven. These are the ones you owe your devotion to. Your godmother, the Crazy Church Lady, who called you her godson when you thought you were distant. Your friend who prays so much for your godmother and for you and who will light candles for you. The Reader, now Priest, who shows godly humility. Presbytera spontaneously lit a candle for you just the other day. What other acts have you failed to see others doing for you?

As I came to give confession for the third time since my conversion, I looked to the icons. The expression of anger was gone. There stood I its place an expression of mercy, welcoming the sinner as he sought to return to the fold. Has this expression always been there? Maybe I was not looking in the right place for so long? But I have not seen the angry expression in the icons in quite a long time. I don't think I have seen this expression in the icons since that moment. They have presented me with mercy and grace. I was deluded to seeing this angry expression. Delusion came not from my control but without. With God's grace, I shall be delivered from this delusion and fly to the place He has prepared for me.

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit! Unto ages of ages, Amen.

Sampson the Holy Unmercenary Healer, and Prayers for a Dear Friend of Mine

I read the entry from The Prologue of Ohrid every day. I turned it to an entry today and found that the entry was on Sampson, the Holy Unmercenary Healer. He would be able to heal the most incurable diseases of his time. When it was said of the Holy Emperor Justinian's physicians that he was suffering from an incurable illness, the Holy Unmercenary Healer Sampson came to him. His medicines and prayers were even more powerful than the conventional medicines of the day. If anybody could heal the Emperor, it would have to be him. Sampson did heal the Emperor Justinian. When the consensus of the physicians was that the Emperor was finished and would be beaten by this illness, Sampson healed the Emperor. The power of God acts against the better wisdom of man sometimes.

I saw on the news the other day of this building that had collapsed. The story was so disturbing that I couldn't bear to handle it. The destruction, the debris, the lives lost. All of this while these unfortunate people were sound asleep. But it made me think of a dear friend of mine. I used to not like her at all. But I realized she had showed compassion to me and turned my resentment of her into a friendship. I have given her candles to light which she has always responded to me with thankfulness. I have lit candles for her and she has responded to me with thankfulness. I remember giving a candle to her before the Divine Liturgy one day. I noticed that it had remained lit throughout and finally burned out at the very end of the Divine Liturgy when it had been lit during Orthros. This building collapse made me think of her because she had talked about very recently how her ceiling in her new home had collapsed. Fortunately, neither her nor her roommate were hurt. But seeing the news about the building that had collapsed made me think fondly of her.

I learned just last night that she had suffered a stroke late Thursday evening. I don't think of her as particularly the greatest of health for her body seems frailer than a spider web. But you wouldn't think of her as one to suffer from such an illness. We are all prone to suffer a stroke at any age and for various reasons. I'm not going to speculate the reasons here either. It was early Friday morning I saw the news of this building collapse. I'm certain people have been talking about this unfortunate situation on social media which I have been avoiding lately. But now I know why I was called to think more fondly of her. As the Apostle says, "I thank my God every time I think of you". When we think of someone, we return thanks to God and we pray for them. When we think fondly of someone, we return thanks to God for the fond memory of that person. I pray regularly for her and didn't even know why I was thinking of her so much until last night.

I talked with her brother-in-law and he said they expect a good update. She is only 32 but has done so much in the parish. At any age, we can suffer a stroke. At any age, the Lord could call us from this Earth. We shouldn't think about what tomorrow holds for we may not get a tomorrow. We should think about what today holds and how we ought to prepare ourselves for the great combat we must face after life on this Earth so that we are ready with a defense before the awesome seat of judgment. We should always be busily thinking about the day of our own judgment for it is appointed for us all to die once and then face the judgment. Preparation for death should be the only thing that is on our minds from day-to-day and what state we wish to find ourselves in upon death. It is a reminder that death can come for us all at any moment. Though she is expected a full recovery, I have known people who have suffered strokes. Sometimes their memory is fuzzy. Sometimes half their bodies shut down. Sometimes they speak with a slur afterwards. No one I know has ever "fully recovered" from a stroke though they may look as if they never suffered a stroke to others who have never met them before.

I remember what a beautiful voice she had prior to her stroke. I wonder if she will still have the same beautiful voice. Perhaps. Perhaps not. My grandmother, who suffered a stroke six years ago, was telling me today how her own singing voice is not what it once was before her stroke. My mom says she detects a slur in her voice from time to time. This may be a most devastating loss for the parish as this lady was deeply involved in the parish life. One can only wonder what a full recovery looks like. But I request prayers for this lovely friend of mine.

So it is that today is the Feast Day of the aforementioned Holy Unmercenary Healer Sampson. Sampson who cured the Emperor when it was said that his ailments were incurable. Sampson who defied the wisdom of men upon healing so many diseases and illnesses suffered by men. Sampson who trusted in the power of God over the wisdom of men. Holy Unmercenary Healer Sampson, pray for my friend that she may truly fully recover from this ailment. If not physically, fill her with the most perfect spiritual graces that she may be filled with the highest beauty of modesty and Godliness.

Letter to a spiritually struggling friend

Dear Friend of Mine,

Do not fret the spiritual struggles you face. You will face plenty. It is important to understand the causes of these. Part of the reasons why we struggle is because we are facing demonic temptation that we fall into. For according to the Blessed Synkletike, "just as those who want to kindle a fire choke from the smoke and the tears at the start, but later on accomplish what they are seeking, so it happens with us in precisely the same way, if we really want to ignite the Divine fire in our hearts" (Evergetinos, Hypothesis XXVIII). There was an Elder who was by someone "why am I continually negligent?" and the Elder answered, "Because you have not yet seen the sun." If we force ourselves to get closer to God, we are "like a Confessor (of the Faith") (ibid). I encourage you, friend, to keep forcing yourself to keep in this spiritual struggle. The flesh will fade away someday.

A monk once found himself in a state of negligence. He quickly reproved himself and ceased not to be negligent recalling every day could ultimately be his judgment day. He was then greatly attacked by demons one time while doing his service and when he challenged the demons as to why they attack him, they responded, "When you were in a state of negligence...we had no interest in you; but as soon as you rose up against us, we rose up against you" (XXIX). We see how frightened the demons are of us when we remain steadfast. Perhaps your minor slip is troubling you, confess this sin and conceal nothing from your confessor! No blasphemous thought, no temptation, and no sin should ever cause you shame when face to face with Our Lord in the great sacrament of reconciliation! He instituted this blessed sacrament as a weapon for our spiritual combat. Turn to Him for He already knows your fallings and your shortcomings and yet He refuses to condemn you.

Finally, remember, in the spiritual life, there are moments of calm and there are moments of storm. Do not fear the storm. Strive to remain in the stormy moments the most for it is these moments in which we are brought closer to God. Is not iron strengthened through the fire which burns it? During moments of calm is when we are most easily deceived. We step out for a moment thinking that all is safe only to realize it was but the eye of a passing hurricane. Rather than being at the end, we are in the very center and now we have found ourselves defenseless against the passions. The demons will fear your soul the most if they see it constantly forcing itself to get closer to God. Do not fear when this happens but continue to wrestle toward this goal remembering the great joys of Heaven you will be rewarded for your perseverance. Get back up again for every single time you fall that you may be found getting back up or upright when He comes for you. And remember that God loves you!

Christians in Hell

There is a story related in the Gerontikon and also in the Evergetinos of Abba Makarios the Egyptian traveling through the desert and coming across a skull. The skull speaks out to him and identifies itself as having once belonged to one of the high priests of the Pagan religion. It describes its torments in Hell but when the Christians pray, there is a temporary moment in which the tormented in Hell are allowed for a moment to look at each other. Abba Makarios, curious for more about the fate of the damned, inquires the skull as to whether there are even greater sufferings than what the skull speaks of. The skull announces that there are indeed, below the Pagans, the souls of Christians who disobeyed the commandments of God and their sufferings are even worse for they knew what they ought to have done.

Yes, there will be Christians in Hell. I remember seeing this obvious truth in high school and going up to my non-denominational pastor who would quiz me on whether or not I believed that Jesus was the Son of God, risen from the dead, and that I was a sinner who he died for. I'd answer in the affirmative. He would tell me then that I was not going to Hell. But there was always those texts in the Scriptures that continued to disturb me. The thought of entering before Heaven, being one who would be denied for not all who say "Lord, Lord" will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Then there was the thought of the judgment in the Book of Revelation, every man being judged according to his works. Those who's names are not written in the Book of Life will be sent to the Lake of Fire for eternity. That faith without works is dead. But these were such Catholic doctrines, they couldn't have been real!

The problem with this strict definition of sola fide is that it ends up ultimately doing nothing more than turning faith into a work. For one must constantly, intellectually profess the same thing over and over again and the moment that one stops, faith departs. But faith is more than just intellectual profession. Faith comes in all shapes and sizes. It can be as tiny as a mustard seed but still move the largest of mountains. It can even be tinier than a mustard seed as emphasized by all who cannot move mountains. Faith is an action. Faith is not an intellectual profession. Faith is making it to church every Sunday morning. Faith is attending the Divine Liturgy attentively and with attunement of the soul to the Will of God. Faith is being entirely consumed by the Divine Will that there is nothing of your own human will left. The Catholic doctrine is not against sola fide but against the doctrine that faith is an intellectual profession. The Catholic doctrine is sola fide formata. Formed faith alone is the doctrine. This faith is formed through the acts of charity and repentance required of a Christian. Those Christians who practice wickedness will not make it to Heaven just because they intellectually professed to faith. Rather, they will be sentenced to Hell for a grueling eternity. And many Christians nowadays who proceed to persecute their fellow brethren for following the ancient tradition of the Church over the modernist infiltrations will be sentenced to far greater tortures than the Pagans who did the same.

I had a dream the other day. My confessor was in it. My godmother was in it. No one else was. We were talking together when my godmother told me to follow my confessor into the nave. I did. Only there was no narthex. Leading into the nave was a hall suspended in the air. The hall was sloped downward but it was so high above the ground, you could see the clouds below. I saw my confessor walk through this hall and leap into the nave. I walked through this hall and began slipping. Not certain as to whether to jump, I hesitated. I saw my confessor reaching toward me but I was too far. I began falling.

This is what the betrayal of the faith looks like. It is this eternal slipping and falling down through the clouds all the way to the ground. It is important that we always pay heed to the fact that we will all die some day. Man doesn't want to deal with this any more. He wants to create medical experiments that prolong his own life and make him immortal. You cannot do this though. You can never become immortal. You may try all you want but God will have the last say in things and His rules are final. It is important that we make the jump and reach for the hands of wise men. It is important we obey the advice of those who have been entrusted with spiritual care over us. They may not always be right, but unless they are telling you something that you know to be a violation of divine law, you ought to follow them. I am well aware that Crazy Church Lady would never tell me to do anything that would be a violation of divine law. And my priest will always be there to help me move up the ladder of divine ascent.

But there is always the possibility of Hell. The moment you turn away from God is the moment that you could then speedily repose and find yourself there for the rest of your eternity. A Christian who does this, paying no heed to the commandments, will suffer even worse pain than the skull which was encountered by St. Makarios as he walked through the desert of Egypt. The experience of Hell will be unbearable. They will be shocked to find themselves in Hell and they will be horrified by the fact that they were serving the legions of the Devil while dressed up as a Christian the entire time. The road to Heaven is narrow and few will make it, but the path to destruction is broad and many will be lost.

To Sedevacate? - Pt. 1

I decided to pick up St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine as I wrestle with the question of what to do regarding Pope Francis. It is possible he is an Antipope and I have indeed referred to him as such before and while the sedevacantist position has its grounding in historical theology, I don't think one should ever jump to it rashly on the basis of a few texts. In the next part, I'll show that St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine can definitely be read to support the sedevacantist position but for now, I want to go over some of the things he states about whether or not the Pope could be a heretic. There is a distinction he makes between occultic (hidden) heretics and manifest heretics. Only the latter is ipso facto excommunicated but the former, while holding error, can still in fact be full members of the Church. I'll discuss this distinction more in my next post too. Bellarmine has this to say about four opinions on whether the Pope can err:

"1) Should the Pope define something, even as Pope, and even with a general Council, it can be heretical in itself, and he can teach others heresy and that this has in fact happened thus. This is the opinion of all the heretics of this time, and especially of Luther, who in his book on councils recorded the errors of even general councils that the Pope approved. It is also the opinion of Calvin, who asserted that at some time the Pope with the whole college of Cardinals manifestly taught heresy on that question of whether the soul of man is extinguished with the body, which is a manifest lie, as well show a little later. Next, he teaches in the same book that the Pope can err with a general council.

2) The second opinion is that the Pope even as Pope can be a heretic and teach heresy, if he defines something without a general Council, something that this opinion holds did in fact happen. Nilos Cabásilas has followed this opinion in his book against the primacy of the Pope; a few others follow the same opinion, especially amongst the Parisian theologians such as John Gerson, Almain and still, Alonso de Castro as well as Pope Adrian VI in his question on Confirmation; all of these constitute infallibility of judgment on matters of faith not with the Pope but with the Church or with a General Council.

3) The Third opinion is another extreme, that the Pope cannot in any way be a heretic nor publicly teach heresy, even if he alone should define some matter, as Albert Pighius says.

4) The fourth opinion is that in a certain measure, whether the Pope can be a heretic or not, he cannot define a heretical proposition that must be believed by the whole Church in any way. This is a very common opinion of nearly all Catholics. ...

From these four opinions, the first is heretical; the second is not properly heretical, for we see that some who follow this opinion are tolerated by the Church, even though it seems altogether erroneous and proximate to heresy. The third is probable, though it is still not certain. The fourth is very certain and must be asserted." (On the Roman Pontiff, Bk. IV, ch. II)

We see that the opinion that the Pope can only be deemed infallible when speaking in agreement with the Church and with the Councils on his own is not necessarily heretical as determined by Bellarmine. Of course, Vatican I seems to suggest that this opinion is now a heresy but, it limits the Papal authority to a matter of ex cathedra statements. If the Chair of St. Peter is derived from the Church, then only speaking in accordance with the Councils and the Church, and not of himself, can the Pope be said to be speaking infallibly. So there is a legitimate case to be made still for the second opinion. That said, regardless of how the ex cathedra statement is interpreted as, it is only when he is defining a matter of faith. We have had multiple encyclicals and councils containing errors as of recently that have never been submitted as de fide statements. To say the Church is bound to error when it is only made pastoral and not as a matter of dogma is erroneous. For the Church is only bound to that which is a de fide matter. Neo-Catholics aren't particularly conservative as they pretend to be. They've only been concerned with conserving the mistakes made by liberals. Some of them have even insisted the Church is bound by everything a Pope says or does, which is highly inaccurate. This is why Bellarmine also states that, "just as it would be lawful to resist a Pontiff invading a body, so it is lawful to resist him invading souls or disturbing a state, and much more should he endeavor to destroy the Church" (On the Roman Pontiff, Bk. II, Ch. XXIX)

Now, Pope Celestine I shows in his epistle that Nestorius lost authority the moment he began to preach his heresies. But we note in the case of St. Cyprian that he viciously disagreed with the Pope's question on whether or not heretics should be rebaptized. Dom John Chapman notes this instance, commenting that "St. Jerome...tells us: 'Bl. Cyprian attempted to avoid heresy, and therefore rejecting the baptism conferred by heretics, sent [the acts of] an African Council on this matter to Stephen, who was then bishop of the city of Rome, and twenty-second from St. Peter; but his attempt was in vain." (Studies on the Early Papacy, 48) The Pope had Tradition on his side in this matter. Though he never defined the position as a de fide statement, the Pope had the Tradition on his side, St. Cyprian did not. St. Cyprian could have definitely been considered a Donatist heretic but he was not. He was not because he was moved for what he felt was orthodoxy and his push toward his position was for what he resisted as a heresy. Citing St. Vincent of Lerins Chapman writes, "For who is so mad as to doubt that blessed Cyprian, that light of all saints and martyrs, with his colleagues shall reign for eternity with Christ? Or who, on the contrary, so sacrilegious as to deny that the Donatists and the other plagues, who boast that it is by the authority of that Council that they rebaptize, shall burn with the Devil for ever?" (50)

We might finish this section with words of the Great Enunciator, Marcel Lefebvre,

"To be a heretic, it is necessary to be pertinacious in adhering to the error; it is not enough to have uttered an heretical phrase. For example, on the subject of the Blessed Trinity―a very difficult subject subject―we might make a mistake or blunder in speech and say something that is not very orthodox. If someone points it out to us we retract; but if they accuse us of heresy, or excommunicate us...how frightful." (Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, 16)

I want to also add that sedevacantists should not be treated as heretics or Protestants. That is grotesque slander from the Neo-Catholics who have shown that they only intend to conserve every single mistake the liberals in the Church have made via "pastoral" decisions any way. Sedevacantists may adhere to the position that the See of Peter remains vacant as a heretic holds that position but they are still in a valid Apostolic Succession. The current situation the Church is in right now is comparable to the Great Schism of the 14th century. That year in which we had a multitude of claimants to the Papal Throne and holy people on both sides adhering to the other as legitimate. We are in that situation currently. Sedevacantists must be treated as our fellow brethren. They are often better Catholics than some of those who uphold the current Pope as legitimate too.

Honor Your Father and Mother

St. Habakkuk's mother pleads for him to convert to
Islam to extend his earthly life.

That's not a question. There is no dispute about it. Our Lord even states that for those who do not honor their father and their mother, God has commanded that they be put to death (Matt. 15:4). But it is not so easily done for those whose parents are not even Christians. My parents made a bad decision. They bring this text up to me every time they see me depart further and further away from their decisions. Am I to follow them in their bad decision? Is that honoring my mother and father? Actually, it is a dishonor to my mother and father. The same Lord who said, "honor your father and mother" also said, "my mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it in practice." (Luke 8:21)

It is difficult for people to live with non-Catholic parents. Sometimes parents who can be overtly hostile to the Catholic faith. I discussed this once with a priest at my parish who converted from irreligion to the Catholic faith last Summer. We talked about how it is difficult for people to grasp sometimes that being a Catholic does not entail that one does not practice their faith in public discourse. Far from it. Public discourse is the very means by which the faith is practiced. It is where people can examine as to whether you are a hypocrite or not by your actions. When you are a Catholic, you have a spiritual mother and a spiritual father whom you heed. The Church becomes your mother. God adopts you as His son through baptism. St. Cyprian tells us that "He can no longer have God for his Father who has not the church for his mother." Our Lady, the Mother of Our Lord and the archetypal image of the Church, becomes our mother through the Church.

It must be noted, according to St. Symeon the New Theologian that, "[The enemy] often uses this one means, attachment to one's kinsfolk, like a lasso to drag them off." (The Discourses, VII.2) Many times people perceive family get-togethers as beneficial times to honor their parents but care must be guarded not to become attached to one's kinsfolk. This means that obedience must always be yielded to the Lord first and foremost. Obedience can never be yielded to the parents or to the kinsfolk for when the human authority that God has subjected you to is opposed to the spiritual life, one must oppose them as well. It is a difficult subject when people live with non-Christian family members and yet practice Christianity. One need not parental permission to go to Church and observe the Feast Days. One need not partake in blasphemous activities with Pagan or heretical relatives either. And Pagan and heretical kinsfolk may attempt to lure you inward. My godfather advises me that as long as they are not worshiping a dragon, I can partake in the things they do. Obviously, if my lesbian sister were to attempt to "marry", I would inform my kinsfolk that I will not attend nor give credence to such a blasphemous mockery of the sacrament.

For this reason, St. John Chrysostom tells us, "when parents oppose us in the spiritual life, we must not even know them, so when they do not hinder us, we ought to give them their due, and prefer them to others, because they gave birth to us, raised us, and endured a thousand sorrows for us." (Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 85) Our Lord in fact backs the Gold-mouthed Preacher on this and says, "Do not suppose I have come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother...a man's enemies will be the members of his own household" (Matt. 10:34-36). Yes, there are times in the spiritual life where the members of your own household will oppose your spiritual development. It is wonderful when they assist your spiritual development, but when they do not, opposition to their will is owed. This is why I always hold my godparents in higher regard than my biological parents. For as long as my biological parents remain opposed to the Christian faith, there will be times when they oppose my spiritual growth.

St. Alphonsus de Liguori teaches us the precepts and the limitations of obedience that is owed to our parents.

"It must be here observed that the Apostle says, 'obey your parents in the Lord,' that is to say, in those things that are pleasing to the Lord, but not in those that are displease Him. If, for example, a mother were to command her son to steal, or to injure another, would he be obliged to obey? Certainly not....Again, St. Thomas teaches that children are not obliged to obey their parents when there is a question of the choice of a state of life." (St. Alphonsus de Liguori, The School of Christian Perfection, ch. 7)

In all obedience, we must ultimately obey God. As long as our biological parents instruct us to hold fast to morals in accordance with the Divine mandate, we may follow them and ought to follow them. But if they ever tell us to disregard the Faith for the sake of our lives or social standing, we must, with St. Habakkuk of Belgrade, say, "My mother, thank you for your milk, but for your counsel, I thank you not: a Serb is Christ's; he rejoices in death!"

Flashing shoes in church...

We seriously need to address this pandemic in our church. I doubt that I am the only parishioner who has photosensitivity issues and I have raised this question before and yet the inconsiderate parents at the parish seem to always smack it down with the whole, "Kids will be kids!" mantra. It's dumb and idiotic and I've had enough. I fled from the parish today because of all these shoes going on which should not be worn at all. Parents need to be pastorally instructed not to dress their kids in such a way that it distracts congregants. Being charitable is not the same as being tolerable toward such an obvious distraction. Being charitable does not mean that your brethren should have to suffer in silence or "look away" when he is in church trying to just pray with you and yet the flashing lights keep pouncing up into his eyes. It is not your brother who ought to be charitable here. Charity is not the attitude of putting up with silliness like this! If you, dear parent, wish to make it to Heaven, show some charity, dress your kid in proper attire, or you and your brother will be lost! I damn near was tempted to throw my car key and scream out in the parking lot, "I HATE THIS [EXPLETIVE] PARISH!!!" This should not be someone's experience when they go to worship Our Lord on a given Sunday.

You, the parent, are in charge of your kid. Unless you want the State to decide that your kid can be vaccinated without your discretion, or that your kid can receive puberty blockers without your discretion, or pick up the TV remote and watch whatever shows they want to watch, then you should cease and desist with the excuse that "Kids will be kids!" You shirk your parental responsibilities by letting them wear such shoes in church to the detriment of many of the faithful. Especially with a photosensitivity that I have which is more severe at times than at others, I cannot worship my Lord in Church and the parish serves no benefit to me. I am fully justified in stating that "I hate this parish" the more that this evil perniciousness is allowed to continue on but do not allow me to be justified in this. Instead, exert your parental responsibilities. Show me that hating the parish is a true sin to be shamed of. Show me that God dwells in your parish by behaving charitably and being more conscientious toward your brother and all of your venerable brother. You have full authority over what shoes your kid wears to church and if you are not more conscientious of the fact that you will be dressing your kids for church on a weekly basis when you buy shoes, you have nothing but yourself to blame for the mistakes your children make!

I am tired of being constantly bullied by parishioners here. I concur with St. John the Evangelist that if any one hates his brother, he is not of God. Well if your brother has told you that he is photosensitive and the flashing shoes have become a distraction to his worship, do not dismiss him by flippantly telling him to be more charitable. He has already exercised charity toward you in telling you this about himself. It is now on you to humbly submit yourself in charity and refuse to allow your kids to wear flashing shoes. Why the hell would I continue going to a parish in which flashing shoes will be constantly distracting me away from the worship of God? Why would I continue to even bother putting up with such a parish? If this is the attitude that God's people treat me with, then it must be better to just wallow around outside the church! Until Holy Transfiguration fixes this problem, I will not be attending divine services there any more. It's a sickening situation. Even my godparents, who I have gently told this already, continue to allow their children to frolic around in flashing shoes. I'm done putting up with the problem. I'm done being told to be "silent and charitable". Flashing shoes should not be worn in church, PERIOD. If you end up missing me, then you'll fix this problem. But if you don't want to fix this problem, then bye. Be a community of charity, not one in which your brother is forced into a situation where he must persistently tolerate that which is a strain to him.

My Spiritual Birthday

Earlier this month, I celebrated my carnal birthday. But man must be born again (John 3:3) in order to enter the Kingdom of God. I grew up non-denominational and then later attended an Evangelical Covenant Church so this verse was frequently wrested from its context as I grew up. We skipped right over to John 3:16 where Jesus explains those who believe in him shall not perish but have life everlasting. While this is true, believing him also means believing in the Church which is his body (Rom. 12:5) and the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

Baptism is the first pouring over of the Spiritual life. Jesus explains clearly to Nicodemos, unless one is born of water and Spirit, they cannot enter the Kingdom of God (John 3:5). I grew up believing that baptism was merely a "symbolic" act of obedience. Something you do to show God you love him because Jesus was baptized. But if Jesus didn't intend for baptism to save us, then why did he end up being baptized in the Jordan? Why was he incarnated? Why did he approach St. John the Baptist and have him baptize him? For many Evangelical Protestants, the baptism that is salvific is a "spiritual" baptism. The other baptism mentioned is just an additional work. Baptism has no salvific effect. This is not how Martin Luther or Thomas Cranmer taught. This is not how the ancient Church taught.

I began to realize how divorced the Evangelical Protestant movement was from the historic tradition of the Church midway through university. It was watered down to such an extent that it was almost deistic. Indeed, even my senior year in high school, I became so obsessed with Christian apologetics that I only thought of God as moving in creation but wondered where he went to after the Bible. I kept wondering where he was in history even as I embraced every single heresy imaginable and even explored the Occult when I was attending an Evangelical Covenant Church. After Arianism ultimately comes liberalism and then Satanism as I discussed once quite well with my Ruthenian deacon friend.

There is only one baptism for the remission of sins as The Nicene Creed teaches. St. Paul teaches that there is only one baptism (Eph. 4:4-6) so any reference to baptism in the New Testament can only be referring to this. If baptism is a mere spiritual act, and not an actual act of being poured or immersed in water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit, then why did the Apostles call so many converts to be baptized following such a redundant format? Baptism ties one to the Passion of Christ by burying the Old Adam and it ties you to the Resurrection by raising you once more and washing you of the stain of original sin (Rom. 6:3-4). It is with this that St. Peter confidently testifies that "Baptism now saves you" (1 Pet. 3:21).

I realized that I needed to be baptized upon leaving Evangelicalism because I was not bound to the Church. I had not been bound to the Church as an Evangelical, and indeed, had I been baptized as an Evangelical, I still would not have been bound to the Church. A sacrament requires appropriate form, matter, and intent. It is true that the Catholic Church accepts Protestant baptisms as valid but only if they fulfill those things! Intent is lacking in Evangelicalism since the baptism's purpose is not to bring you into the Church but show that you've already been a member and are performing an additional work. I was baptized at mortuary, by a marine, in the Anglican Church in America. It was a High Anglican church with liturgically orthodox doctrines concerning the sacraments. My baptism brought me into the Church where I wasn't before. Today marks my sixth spiritual birthday.

The Truly Venerable Thomas à Kempis

Crazy Church Lady is crazy for a myriad of reasons. Not for her intelligence. She knows what she is talking about all of the time...now just most of the time, actually. She and I can have misunderstandings on occasion though this most recent one was really just more a lack of awareness that certain things can be a greater trigger for me than other people. So it is when it comes to a lot of church affairs these days. They can have that edge and wear. It's a constant battle of the will of the fallen flesh and the will of the Spirit in the Christian life.

For me, that trigger was from a humorous discussion we were having regarding how if she pushed her two youngest too high on the swing, they might fall off. "Remember your brother Steve?" and that sort of thing. I made a comment about how "their sister Margaret" once was pushed too high, fell off, went into a coma, then was buried alive by mistake. To which I mentioned how there used to be bells by the grave-sites in case people were buried alive by mistake. Thence came the trigger..."That's why Thomas à Kempis will never be canonized. He was buried alive and they found scratch marks on the coffin lid when they dug it up," she said.

That threw me into a state of shock. I had heard mention that Thomas à Kempis will never be canonized before. Similar story. Relating to the odd nature of his burial as well. I had forgotten it. Rightly so. You don't really give much thought to it. But having actually experienced God and the Church, this not only triggered me but gravely (no pun intended) disturbed me. How is it that God's grace would deem such an unfortunate situation for an otherwise holy man to prevent not only his canonization but also his veneration? If a gut feeling tells you something isn't true, it likely isn't true. Sure, some might state that they had no reason to deny the claim that it prevented his canonization because they might feel questioning such a claim would deny authority or they've reconciled it with their own view of the Church, but I could not reconcile the claim with either God's grace and abundant mercy and the way I have come to view ecclesiology.

I went into a state of near and total despair. Clearly, the Crazy Church Lady knows her stuff. But still, why does my gut keep saying that the man attributed as the author of The Imitation of Christ, which has not only led so many souls to Heaven but also has been recommended and reflected upon by several of the Church Triumphant, could not possibly be canonized. This literally was eating away at me for an entire day. I needed to talk to someone sober-minded, genuine in character, and who would openly listen. But I also kept obsessing over this seemingly suspicious revelation. I ended up talking about it with the deacon the next night. Well, here's the thing, I haven't been able to find a single source to verify Crazy Church Lady's claim, number one, and the deacon, though he be a Melkite and hadn't actually even heard of Thomas à Kempis before, mentioned that he had never heard such a claim in the Latin Church that evidence of a premature burial is grounds for the denial of canonization. To which I perked a bit. I looked further into this. Indeed, there is no canonical grounds for a dismissal if evidence of a premature burial is found! The only thing I can think of is that it would be related to the issue of mortal sin and whether or not the holy person was in a state of mortal sin at death. Such would be grounds. But given the nature that one would have to be in a coma in order for such a mistake to happen, it is preposterous to contend that mortal sin would occur since for a mortal sin to be committed, one must have made the voluntary consent to sin.

John Duns Scotus

In reading more on this issue, I came across one such translation of The Imitation of Christ by Paraclete Press, which mentions in a footnote the following:

The most bizarre (but extremely consistent) legend had it that when Thomas's remains were discovered in 1672, it was found that the inside of the coffin lid was covered with scratches and there were splinters of wood under the fingernails of the corpse thereby preventing canonization since there was no way to know his true state of mind at the time of his actual death. It might be of interest to know that the Franciscan theologian John Duns Scotus died in Köln in 1308, and when the burial vault was opened, he was found lying outside the coffin. (p. 439)

This story was first stated by the philosopher Francis Bacon in his work Historia vitae et mortis. John Duns Scotus was beatified in 1993. It is possible that it was his philosophical and anti-Scottish opponents that came up with this story and that it is a myth. But it clearly did not stop his beatification regardless.

The Attacks From the Neo-Catholics!

One article that reads quite sickeningly on the subject of Thomas à Kempis has the following to say:

Even 15th-century famous spiritual writer German Thomas à Kempis didn’t make it through the process. His body was exhumed and examined during his case for sainthood. There are stories that there were scratch marks on the inside of his coffin and splinters of wood under his fingernails. These discoveries suggested an escape attempt after being buried alive. The issue would have been that Thomas à Kempis did not peacefully accept death as a saint should.

What? This is on the lines of either a) we have a very cynical Church when it comes to cases where holy men are accidentally buried alive or b) a holy man must have proper compunction if he is mistakenly buried alive. If this sounds sickening to you, then it's possible that either a) the story is not true or b) there may have been a much different reason for why the man has not been canonized that extends beyond the circumstances of his death. To state that we must resist euthanasia on one hand and yet refuse to give in to death on the other hand is both contradictory and absurd. If God's will is for us not to die or be called home, then we have every right to attempt an escape from a coffin we were prematurely buried in. There is nothing in the Latin canonization process that mentions this!

This next attack is even more bizarre.

Thomas died in 1471, but when his remains were exhumed they found splinters under his finger nails and the coffin scratched up. In other-words, Thomas was most likely buried alive. The church seeing this as a situation where Thomas may have despaired decided to not proceed with his canonization cause citing this incident twice when the cause is again and again brought up.

Okay, so if you're buried alive and try to escape, you're damned because you refused to give in to death before your time. If you're buried alive and make scratch marks you're damned because you despaired. Make sense?

The forum comments!

Oh, it's indeed true if they say it in forums over and over again! You know random people on the internet are always the most reliable sources of information!

My understanding is that there’s substantial doubt as to whether he ever existed. He might have been a fictitious, composite character created by a small group of anonymous religious writers. (PauloFreire2, Catholic Forums - points for creativity, I laughed)

On[e] of our pastors in South Dakota who is now deceased, a very credible and holy priest, Fr. Leonard D. Fox (1st cousin to Fr. Robert Fox who founded the Fatima Family Apostolate and was on EWTN for the few years of his life) told us that when Thomas’s grave was opened up he was facing downward and that’s why the canonization process was stopped. It was a sign of despair. (Bsokolow - Catholic Forums - well the Crazy Church Lady is a very credible and holy woman, does that mean she's always right? I see her go to confession!)

It is true that he has not been canonized. I read somewhere that his cause was opened, but when he was exhumed, they discovered scratches all over the roof of the coffin and clumps of his hair in his hands. I guess he had been buried alive accidentally, and the powers that be assumed that he despaired, something saints aren't supposed to do. (Iubeltri, Orthodox Christian forums)

Etc. Notice how the story changes. He's facing downward, he's scratching on the coffin lid, he's got clumps of hair in his hands. I've read one commenter saying that he had "a look of despair in his face". It's gone from ambiguity to total confidence - definitely in despair!

But again, if it cannot be argued that he had full mental faculties, then he cannot actually be guilty of mortal sin. Even if awoken alive to find himself in a coffin, the absence of full control over mental faculties from the lack of oxygen to the fact you've just woken from a coma, indicates that mortal sin is impossible to commit in such a state. Mortal sin requires voluntary consent. And there's no rule that indicates that signs of being buried alive by mistake nullifies the canonization process. Anneliese Michel was a demoniac who died from malnourishment in a botched exorcism. People make pilgrimages to her grave-site on a yearly basis. Lack of full mental faculties means one cannot possibly be held accountable for whatever they end up committing.

Okay now, the real story

Yes, there's the real story of the exhumation of Thomas à Kempis. There aren't too many biographies on him but in wrestling with this issue over the last couple days, I searched and sought and finally found one. It is by Francis R. Cruise. A British medical scientist, he actually spent much time dedicated to literary study with a focus in particular on Thomas à Kempis. This is what he writes on the exhumation:

[O]n the 13th of August the coffin was opened, and the bones of the holy man exposed to view. The remains were in wonderful preservation, and the bones were attached in situ. The head was nearly perfect and rested on a mass of peat. The teeth were white, those in the upper maxilla being present, but on being touched they fell from the sockets. The lower jaw retained only a few of the teeth. The right side of the skeleton lay somewhat lower than the left, and had mouldered considerably. The hands were crossed, the right lying on the left. The bones of the fingers and toes were in tact, but the ribs and shoulder-blades had crumbled to dust. The stole, made of white satin and embroidered with flowers, lay around his neck, the lower part being quite consumed. The portion which had escaped destruction was taken by the Elector as a relic. From the inner aspect of the left ankle an abundance of beautiful coloured flowers were found growing--doubtless a variety of lichen. Many circumstances combine to identify these remains, and lead to the conviction that they were undoubtedly those of Thomas à Kempis. (Thomas à Kempis, 322-323)

Well that sounds quite the opposite of all that has been posted about him in forums. Almost as if someone should take up his cause for canonization. Why wasn't he canonized? 

Two centuries after the Reformation, during which the priory was destroyed, the holy remains were transferred to Zwolle and enclosed in a handsome reliquary by Maximilian Hendrik, Prince-Bishop of Cologne. At present they are enshrined in St. Michael's Church, Zwolle, in a magnificent monument erected in 1897 by subscriptions from all over the world and inscribed: "Honori, non memoriae Thomae Kempensis, cujus nomen perennius quam monumentum" (To the honour not to the memory of Thomas à Kempis, whose name is more enduring than any monument). It is interesting to recall that the same Maximilian Hendrik, who showed such zeal in preserving and honouring the relics of à Kempis, was also eager to see the cause of his beatification introduced and began to collect the necessary documents; but little more than a beginning was made when he died (1688) and since that date no further steps have been taken. (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia)

Oh. Well that makes sense now and seems far less conspiratorial, self-contradictory, or even worrisome of the Church's cynical attitude toward those mistakenly buried alive. It is interesting to note that Wikipedia's articles on premature burial and Thomas à Kempis make no mention of this idea that Thomas à Kempis was buried alive. There are no credible references that back it. Why mention it? The story is contradicted flatly by perhaps the most reliable biographer of Thomas à Kempis we may ever have. The Crazy Church Lady...has a pulse!