#and the eucharist. do other christians even do that???

[molluskzone]

eve and her family were initially written to be catholic (because that is the ONLY religion i have any personal experience with) but im kind of enraptured (LOL) by the very concept of rapturing. so i think i might make them evangelicals instead? that will be such a pain though i have 0 experience with evangelicals. or really protestants of any flavor.

[katakaluptastrophy]

You know when you're at a dinner party with God and things start to get...weird...? It's Maundy Thursday, and it's time for more Bible study for fans of weird queer necromancers!

It's currently Holy Week, the week where liturgical Christians reenact the events of Jesus' death and resurrection in real time. And today, it's Maundy Thursday, which commemorates the Last Supper, where Jesus ate with his friends before he was crucified.

Before we get to the Locked Tomb, what's so special about the Last Supper?

There are actually a few significant things that happen during the Last Supper, but this is where Jesus introduces the concept of communion:

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood. - Matthew 26:26-28

This isn't actually the first time Jesus has told his followers they will need to literally eat him:

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. - John 6:53-56

If you're thinking that sounds a bit intense, you're not alone - the Bible says that "many" of his disciples left after being told that they were apparently going to have to eat Jesus to be saved and resurrected.

While many Protestant denominations take this symbolically, Catholicism teaches transubstantiation: that when the priest prays over the bread and wine at mass, they really do become Jesus' body and blood.

With this in mind, let's circle back to necromancers:

"Overseas to Corpus. (She likes the word corpus; it sounds nice and fat.)"

This is probably Corpus Christi College, Oxford (named after the Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ, where the church celebrates the real presence of Jesus in the eucharist). The symbol of the college is a pelican - there's even a fabulously gilded pelican atop the sundial in their main quad.

What do pelicans have to do with the eucharist? Quite a lot, actually... The pelican is a really old symbol for Jesus, because it was believed to feed its young on its own flesh and blood in times of famine. The pelican on the Corpus Christi sundial is pecking at its own chest.

The pelican, like Jesus, was believed to give its own body to save those it loved.

Okay, so we've talked about Jesus, and weird cannibal birds, but why is this relevant to necromancers?

Specifically, the necromancer, the Necrolord Prime. John Gaius styles himself as "the god who became man", echoing Jesus as "the word became flesh". His entire pastiche of divinity is a sort of bootleg Catholicism. But while Catholicism posits Jesus' offering of his own body as foundational to the salvation and resurrection of humanity to eternal life, John's godhood relies the exploitation of other's bodies as the foundation of an empire of eternal death.

I've mentioned before in discussing Lyctorhood, how vampires have been understood to represent a sort of inversion of the eucharist because instead of consuming Christ's blood to receive eternal life in heaven, they consume other people's blood for an cursed eternal life on earth. John, and the Lyctors who followed him, gained power and eternal life from the consumption, body and soul, of another person.

In Catholic theology, Jesus offered his own body to degradation and death for the eternal salvation of humankind, but John forcibly consumes someone else's in service of his own apotheosis and immortality, dooming humanity in the process. He wants to be a Catholic flavoured god, but without the suffering that entails. But he's perfectly willing to outsource that suffering to others.

There's something just achingly awful about Alecto liking the feel of the word "corpus" - "body" - when she so hates the body that John constructed for her. John describing Alecto as "in a very real way" the mother of humanity and the mother pelican on the Corpus sundial rending her own flesh for her children. John forcing the earth into a personification of femininity and playing Jesus on another's sacrifice. His daughter, unwillingly trapped in her own corpse walking around with the wounds of her significant self-sacrifice like the resurrected Christ but yet again another body exploited by John in support of his performance of godhood. It brings to mind a very different fantastical engagement with Catholicism, where in the Lord of the Rings Tolkien - riffing on St Augustine - suggested that evil cannot create, it can only mock and corrupt. The ethics of The Locked Tomb may be messier than that, but there's something indicative in how John shies away from his creative powers - his abilities to grow plants, and manipulate earth and water - in favour of his dominion over death.

The metaphysical world of The Locked Tomb is clearly not intended to be the same as that of Catholicism. But with hindsight, perhaps John was onto something when he was surprised that he didn't "get the Antichrist bit" from the nun too.

John isn't the Antichrist. But he is, thematically, anti-Christ.

If we're talking about John and Jesus, there's also, of course, the question of Resurrection. But we've got to go through Hell and back before we get there on Sunday...

[tomicscomics]

08/16/2024

Our deacon shared this anecdote last week at Mass. It's a little different each time I hear it, but the moral is always the same.

___

JOKE-OGRAPHY:

1. This cartoon is based on a widespread but often mutated anecdote. There are lots of versions, so I'm not sure what the original story is (share it in the comments if you know), but the two versions I heard recently go thuswise:

(1) An atheist goes up to a Christian and says, "If I believed what you say you believe about Judgment Day and the fate of those who reject Christ, I would crawl across the world on broken glass, begging every single person to repent."

(2) A Catholic and a Protestant walk together, but as they pass a Catholic church, the Catholic bows and makes the Sign of the Cross, as a sign of respect for the Eucharist inside. His Protestant friend says, "If I believed what you say you believe about the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, I would crawl to that altar on my hands and knees."

(Breakdown) In every version of the story I've heard, there are two characters: a faithful person and an accuser of some kind. The faithful is usually doing some small gesture of their faith, which the accuser sees as insufficient for the level of belief the faithful claims to have. I want to clarify that no one expects for evangelists to walk on broken glass forever to preach to everyone in the entire world, or for Catholics to crawl up and worship at every tabernacle they pass on a drive. We're human, so we need to find ways to manifest worship or evangelism while also going about our normal healthy lives with each other. Sometimes those ways are imperfect and small, and that's okay, as long as we're really trying. The accuser's point is hyperbolic, but nonetheless poignant.

(Moral) No matter which version of the story you hear, I think the question it poses remains the same: "Is our faith more than just talk?" It's easy to say we believe in God, but what does that belief do? It's a monumental claim, isn't it? Maybe the MOST monumental claim you could make. It seems like it should have a monumental impact on EVERYTHING we do, but instead, life just kind of moves along. How can we dare to claim that we actually believe? What does believing even mean, if it doesn't manifest itself in more than our words? Big questions from such a small story.

2. Our deacon recited the Eucharist-version of this story last week at Mass, and it made me want to illustrate it. I'm sorry this cartoon isn't gut-bustingly hilarious. Here, let me make it up to you with a fun joke. Knock knock.

[acesw]

The Grecos, Schneider, and her Religious Trauma

One of the characters I really find interesting is Schneider. There are strong signs that she has religious trauma, which ties really well with the neglect she's experienced growing up and the way this trauma reflects her behaviors and words.

The Grecos are known to be really religious, and they're quite devout to Christianity as a means of life. It does not mean that they wouldn't do things to ensure that they're able to at least eat. Living in Chicago of all places is already one struggle enough, making sure they get by despite having bad relationships with gangs adds so much.

Prior to moving, they were more devoted to God as coming from a community in Sicily. They moved because of how bad the poverty situation had been (the major Italian emigration in the 1900-1910s), hoping to seek a better life in America. Of all places though, they moved to Chicago, where there were crimes and gangs all about. This resulted to the Grecos having to pull strings to keep their head up the water, and they still practice Christianity as a means to maintain morale.

We then have Schneider. The youngest and most neglected child of the Grecos. She was barely fed and paid attention to among her 11 older sisters. The Narrator also notes that she was even neglected from the start, as she turned a year old before her father realized she wasn't baptized.

Now, there are two main instances that showcase Schneider's religious trauma peeking through are the traces "From One Castle to Another" and "Long Night Trip". Both of which are very much talking about Schneider's past. There are parts of the dialogue that stick out to me.

-From One Castle to Another

"It's impossible to keep every child well-fed. Schneider could not even get a piece of bread in the Eucharist. But a good daughter would not let anyone worry about her. She sat on the bench outside the church and hummed. She found a way out for herself."

"The Grecos are among them. They're covered by the dark cloud of long-handed umbrellas. [...] But you can't find Schneider. [...] It rains heavier. The priest opens his arms to embrace the sky, 'The Lord be with you.' " " 'And also with you.' Schneider responds in a voice that could hardly be heard. She puts her hand on her heart. This is the first time she responds to the Lord. And it will be the last."

-Long Night Trip

The Narrator talks about Schneider's slow descent into losing her faith in these conversations. She used to pray and hope that God would fix things and give an answer for her and her family's suffering. And all that happened was that it got worse.

It only ever makes Schneider question and doubt, and eventually she stops believing in God. But everyone around her, her family in particular, still maintains their strong belief that he'd guide them out of struggle. Meanwhile, she take things into her own hands for that matter.

And again, everyone would resort to praying, praying, and praying. Yet Schneider wouldn't dare try. Because if he listened to her this one time then they heard all the other times and never cared to help. That rubs salt in the wound.

So with this, we see how Schneider creates her newfound identity. She starts frequenting underground markets and doing certain odd jobs. She is able to make amends with other gang leaders and grow her own strong faction in Chicago.

All so she makes enough money for the rest of her family to eat and thrive. It showcases her sense of selflessness, her full care for her family despite how they treated her. She cares for them more than anything, because even with barely receiving love, they're the ones that raised her. Schneider actively does it all to prove that she can give.

Even in the main story there are those hints of that trauma seeping through. Throughout the game she refers to her bosses as "My Lord", a name that's usually reserved for God.

In the 'Green Oranges' segment of chapter 2, we see that Schneider's younger self describes America as a new world. A place of wonders, where blessings will be given and all sins will be forgiven. There, "God loves the world". Because back in Sicily, she believes that God does not love her and her family here. This ties back to the major Italian emigration in the 1900-1910s, where again, the poverty situation had been so bad. Not to mention the overpopulation and the natural disasters that came with it.

Meanwhile, her adult self is heavily injured from the gunshot wounds and Vertin stops shooting her. She expresses her frustration of being unable to die fast, which then turns to this: "Or did God finally forgive me...He allowed me...to stay alive!!"

"God would never make or guide one to that first action," Schneider thinks, because only she alone did it. She decided to step in, with no guidance of the God she once loved. The God that never forgave her.

The entirety of chapter 1 and 2 shows that her trauma runs really deep. The youngest and most neglected child turns into the most diligent and faithless Greco. She expresses her clear disdain for God, and does everything in her own power to do what "he never did for her and her family."

[thejournallo]

Explain the basic: Offerings

Desclaimer: Everything I will talk about is information that I got from books and sites online and even videos on YouTube. In my years of practice, I learned as much as I could out of curiosity and what works best for me. I suggest you do the same by learning as much as you can on your own (I will be here making posts teaching this kind of stuff) from multiple sources.

Offering to deities and entities in general is a practice found in many cultures and religions around the world. Every deity or entity that you make an offering for has its own symbol. For example, Apollo is the god of the sun; music, art, and poetry; writing something or singing for him can be offerings. 

There are many religions that take on the act of offering as a sign of respect and devotion to that specific religion. Here are some examples:

Hinduism: Offerings (puja) often include fruits, flowers, incense, and food, placed before images of deities in temples or home altars.

Buddhism: Offerings may include candles, incense, flowers, and food, placed before statues of the Buddha and bodhisattvas.

Christianity: Candles, bread, and wine are common offerings, especially in the context of the Eucharist.

Shinto: Offerings of rice, sake, and other food items are made at shrines to honor kami (spirits or gods).

Paganism and Wicca: Offerings might include seasonal fruits, flowers, wine, and personal tokens, placed on altars dedicated to specific deities or nature spirits.

All these religions have common practices that we can see and see over time; all of those are not rules but more something you can do or not do. (Especially because no one has the same opportunities.)

Altars: A dedicated space where offerings are made. This can be a simple shelf at home or an elaborate structure in a temple.

Purity: Many traditions emphasize the importance of purity in the offerings, meaning they should be clean and handled with respect.

Timing: Offerings are often made at specific times, such as during festivals, holy days, or particular phases of the moon.

Intention: The mindset and intention behind the offering are crucial. It should be given with respect, devotion, and a pure heart.

These offerings can take various forms, each carrying its own significance and purpose. Here's an overview of the different types of offerings and the common practices associated with them:

Types of Offerings

Food and Drink:

Fruits, grains, and vegetables: Often used in offerings to symbolize abundance and gratitude.

Cooked meals: Specific dishes that are favored by the deity or entity.

Drinks: This can include water, wine, milk, or other beverages. In some traditions, alcoholic drinks like mead or sake are common.

Sweets and desserts: Cakes, candies, or other sweet treats, especially those that are traditional or culturally significant.

Flowers and Plants:

Fresh flowers: Often chosen for their beauty and fragrance. Certain flowers are associated with specific deities.

Herbs:: Sacred or medicinal herbs may be offered for their symbolic properties.

Incense and Aromatics:

incense: Burned to create a fragrant smoke that is believed to please the deities.

Essential oils: Used for anointing or in diffusers to create a sacred atmosphere.

Candles and Lights:

Candles: Lit to symbolize light, purity, and the presence of the divine.

Oil lamps: Used in many traditions, often with ghee or olive oil.

Objects and Symbols:

Statues or images: Placed on altars as representations of the deity or entity.

Jewelry or precious items: Offered as a sign of respect and devotion.

Money and Valuables:

Coins or currency: Offered in temples or shrines, sometimes used to support the upkeep of the place of worship.

Jewelry or precious items: Given as a form of sacrifice or in seeking favor.

Actions and Devotions:

Prayers and chants: Recited to honor the deity or entity.

Songs and music: Played or sung as a form of praise.

Dance: Performed in some cultures as an offering of movement and energy.

Conclusion

Offering to deities and entities is a deeply personal and culturally rich practice. It serves as a way to connect with the divine, show gratitude, seek blessings, and maintain a reciprocal relationship with the spiritual world. The specific items and practices may vary, but the underlying principles of respect, devotion, and intention remain consistent across different traditions.

[givemearmstopraywith]

My mom keeps asking me why I stopped going to confession (I'm catholic, but it's complicated) and one of the reasons why is that it feels stupid and pointless to me. But is there like good reasons why I maybe should give it a try? Is confession even biblical? Or am I right for staying away from it? (side note: I've not been to confession for about 6 years now (I think), but before that I've been going to confession pretty much regularly for maybe 10 years. So it's not something I've just "tried" once and never again.)

there is no biblical precedent for confession as it exists in the catholic church. in 1 john 1:9, we're told that if we confess our sins to one another, God is faithful to us and forgives us. number 5:7 lays out the historical jewish practice of publicly confessing sins and making restitution. confessing to a priest means that you are confessing to a mediator between yourself and God, and that mediator gives you your restitution for those sins- these are works, since in catholicism we are justified through faith and works and not by faith alone, as in the protestant tradition. there's a lot of strength and depth to justification through faith and works, rather than just justification through faith: but i think you, like many christians, probably crave "works" that are a bit more comprehensive, more humane, than what is typically utilized in confession.

on the other side of this issue, hebrews 3:1 and 7-22-27 tells us that jesus is the high priest of our confession, the one mediator between God and men. on christ can forgive sins: but importantly the priest does not forgive your sin himself, he simply acts as a mediator on your behalf- a descendent of prophets, you might say. part of what i like about the anglican church is that the confession of sins is built into the liturgy, said as a congregation before partaking of the eucharist. this to me seems pithy and practical. but i am also someone who suffers from scruples: i never feel quite good enough, i am oppressed by the knowledge of my own fallenness and base nature (but i am getting better at not feeling this way all the time- nobody should, God does not want us to be crippled by guilt).

it is neither right nor wrong to stay away from confession. what it comes down to is your calling. everyone is called, but we are called in different directions. some are called to partake fully in the life of the catholic church, with its rites, rituals, sacramentalism, and tradition: all of these things are beautiful and meaningful in their own way, but they will be neither of those things to anyone who is not called to it. some are called to have a personal, private relationship with God. others are called to not have one at all. whether we conceive God in an inherent manifestation of "thinginess" or not, we are all called somewhere. it is the nature of being human, because to be human means to be woven into the universe and all it contains. the other thing is that we all do require confession on some level, because we all commit acts that are devoid of goodness- whether accidentally or with purpose.

my personal belief about sin is that it does not exist the way goodness exists, with form: sin is simply an emptiness, created by my own wrongdoing, waiting to be filled with goodness. part of how i feel that emptiness and try to fill it again is through public confession in the anglican church, by private prayerfulness, and by a concerted effort to minimize the harms i commit in my life as much as i can, which means restitution, reconciliation, and sitting with my guilt. but i have never felt personally called to the act of confessing my wrongdoing to a priest, although i have felt called to seek advice and clarification from them.

i am also someone who has a complicated relationship with catholicism and religion in general: i also had a mom who got on me for not performing my religiosity the way she expected me to, or the way i was taught or raised. my advice is ultimately, that this issue is between you and God. if its something you feel comfortable with, talk to God (or the universe, or Spirit, or whatever you conceive a higher power to be). wait. listen. pay attention. if your spirit does not feel called to confession, listen to it. in the practical side, i might suggest tell your mom that you are in a process of discerning God's call for you. if you are comfortable with it, you may want to talk to a priest or another member of clergy on this topic- you may also want to try attending a different denomination, or another faith tradition altogether. read the bible. read torah. read the qur'ran. pray. i spent a long time discerning what God wanted from me, went through a period of agnosticism, atheism, and other, more pearl-clutchy things, and ended up more involved in my faith than anyone, including my mom, ever expected- but i needed to walk away from it first. i needed find my way home. God does not mind if we wander. he made a whole world for us to wander in. God's story with humanity is full of people walking away and finding their way back where they started again: or they are taken to places they could have never imagined. either way, he is there. either way, you'll know. but lean into this place you're in now: it, like everything, has something to teach you.

[sapphosremains]

Thoughts on Calvinism?

This is so interesting bc the majority of posts about Calvinism on here have focused on its beliefs about predestination, so I want to try and buck that. As with everything on this blog you'll get a weird mix of personal religion and academic theology, so do shout if you only wanted one or the other and I'll try again! Another disclaimer: I have no formal reading or research on Calvinism - denominational theology isn't really my area, so anything in here is personal opinion and from brief research, but no real academic reading. I'll get round to it, but it's not the top of my list right now!

Starting with the unified idea against the Real Presence, with Calvinism teaching that the Eucharist is simply a reminder of Christ's sacrifice, personally I just can't agree. I am still working out where I am on trans/consubstantiation, but I do completely believe in the idea of the Real Presence, and reject a memorialist theology. To me, it just doesn't work that the Eucharist can be a sacrament yet only a reminder and a memorial (although to be fair, Calvin's alternate view of what a sacrament is dodges this issue, but I can't agree with it so still personally doesn't work).

Now, from what I've read, Calvinism seems pretty on the side of sola scriptura, which again as an anglocatholic I am not. I think there's a reason why Revelation is addressed to the churches, and why Jesus devoted so much time to His disciples. Do I think that the Church is possibly more fallible than scripture? Yes, that's why I'm not RC, but I think the Church and community is of utmost importance, and understanding of Christianity and rule of faith is reliant on the Church. Furthermore, I think that again there's a reason why the Pope is the Pope and I'm not, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is and I'm not! Not that I would suggest that Calvinists reject this idea, just that I think there is a chain of authority and expertise in the Church for a reason, and their view ought to carry more weight than mine, despite us both reading the same scripture.

Carrying on with this Church idea, despite what I've just said, I'm not sure about the idea of God's only communication being through Christ. I'll come onto other reasons, but the first one that landed concretely with me was the idea that the preaching of ministers about God is the Word of God. Mmmm. Not sure. I think it's quite a vain idea to suggest that humans, ordained or not, let alone a massive group of them all preaching different things can all be speaking the word of God. Even just think of a minister you know who's said something slightly off, or a denomination that is far off every other, or not to generalise but if you've ever watched a mega-church service... can they all be the Word of God? Makes me feel a bit icky. The other stuff about Christ and salvation being the only two methods of God's self-revelation I feel like I don't know enough theology about to write about, but my instinct is against.

Covenant theology to me just felt like another framework, and I'm not keen on it. So far what I've read of Calvinism just seems to me like it tries to restrict a divine and infinite being into finite and defined ways of working with humans, and I'm not super keen.

Social trinitarianism? Nuh uh. I just, no. Not sure what to say, I'm just a Nicene creed girly.

Now, getting into the stuff we see more on here, starting with total depravity. This one makes me sad. There was a really good post on here which I've just been looking for (similar to this post by @hymnsofheresy) and I wish I could find it but essentially just a different view of original sin, seeing it more as meaning that we cannot be perfect, and to prevent us being perfectionists because we are in a world which cannot let us be perfect. I really like this view. The Calvinist idea of total depravity meaning that we are displeasing to God, 'defiled and polluted' in his sight, and makes us 'naturally hateful to God' is just like what? God loves us. Yes, He hates sin, and sin is irrevocably linked to the person, but I can't believe that He hates us and finds us displeasing, defiled, and polluted from the minute we are conceived.

Now, predestination. Similarly to the original sin, I just think this is such a nihilist theology. I think if I believed that there was a chance that before I had a chance to have faith, or do good works, I was condemned to hell, no matter what I did, I would struggle to have faith. Why would one want to believe in a God if you think that He could have condemned you to hell before your existence, based on no characteristic of your own?

On a more flippant note (ha), I couldn't be Calvinist because I love music, and as cool as a cappella is, it definitely couldn't be my whole liturgical life (also I'm an organist!).

Hope this was somewhat interesting, and I hope not horrifically uniformed. What are your thoughts?

[cariiibaez]

Having a holy rosary with your Bible are essential to your faith. Your holy rosary is fundamental to strengthen your faith and pray for other people. I have lots of faith in the holy rosary. It whips the devil and anything evil you are dealing with, the rosary resolves it for you. If you have a problem with something or someone, pray the holy rosary and your problem will get resolved. If you are grateful about something, pray the holy rosary and give thanks to God by praying the rosary. Reading the Bible is essential to a Christian faith because it also fills you with wisdom and knowledge about God. God speaks to you when you read the Bible. When we pray the holy rosary, we talk back to God but when we read the Bible, God talks to us. Declare Jesuschrist as your savior and those words will save your life. Everything in the Bible is true. Do you know what is also true? Visiting the blessed sacrament and talk to Jesus from your heart. Jesus is truly present in the blessed sacrament. Go to a Catholic Church and visit a blessed sacrament. You will kneel or sit down quietly. Look at the host and stare at it. Talk to Jesus from your heart. When you leave that place, you will realized someone was listening to you. That is Jesus. Your prayers get answered when you have faith in Jesus by visiting Him in the blessed sacrament. Jesus is alive and He has never leave us. Jesus is pure love. We have access to God and people don’t even know it. We have the holy rosary, the Bible, the sacramentals, and the blessed sacrament. The Eucharist is food for the soul. Visit Jesus in the blessed sacrament and pray your rosary. God bless you.

[ignylinn]

And yes, another Catholic TLT post, or maybe general religion post

The religion of Jod is not reminiscent of Catholicism. It is an antithesis to Christianity and Catholicism (and, as I recently discovered, even Buddhism, I will not comment on that, read the post).

In Christianity, God dies and is ressurected. In Jodism, everyone dies except Jod. Christ dies do save humanity, Jod kills to warp humanity in his image.

In Christianity, the faithful are to spread the good news about God. In Jodism, the faithful are to spread energy of death.

In Catholicism, there is Eucharist and transubstantiation. In Jodism, there is devourment of soul.

In Catholicism, anyone in Heaven is a Saint, and Saints are recognized, not made. In Jodism there is no Heaven, and Saints are those who Jod wants to become Saints, no virtue required.

And on, and on.

This whole structure, and the world everyone is in, looks like anti-world, or anti-world as we know it. Sometimes I think that John just thrusted humanity and the Solar system to the other bank of the river, or to the underworld, and Stoma is a pathway to normality.

Also, in our world, Christianity is capable of, and did, and does become antithesis to itself. Cause everything I listed of course happened.

[the-trans-folk-witch]

The Green Devil of the Ozarks: The little green fairy of... moonshine?

It was 2005. I was with my grandfather in an old shop similar to "dick's 5 and 10" outside of Branson, Missouri. This is where The Green Devil caught my eye.

My grandfather frequented little old fashioned stores like this. He loved collecting all kinds of gadgets. Old movie posters, salt water taffy, and soda parlor paraphenalia. It was heaven on earth to him in this little corner of the world that was stuck in an older Ozark time. His house wasn't too dissimilar to a crackerbarrel gift shop. All kinds of wooden toys and dolls. He loved his little knickknacks. But on that day he found it. A copy of an old French absynthe poster with "the little green fairy" smirking at the viewer. He had to have it. It was being sold for $8! frame included! If only the seller knew the true value of it. Or how it's mere existence was breaking so many copyright laws.

Maurin Quina, as it's named, is a French apéritif advertisement painted by Leonetto Cappiello in 1906. The drink was made illegal soon after its creation. But this poster is now being reused today. It was not well known in the US at all back then. Not even in the 2000's. but my grandfather being a moonshiner, absynthe fan, and art history drop out, knew all about it.

My grandfather was not as religious as the rest of my family. But he sure prayed to God when he was trying to avoid the law. He was selling homemade moonshine without any sort of license or proper knowledge of sanitary practices. It was an arte form he learned from his father that I never had the pleasure of learning.

He decided to hang this new poster up in his storm cellar where he kept his aging bottles of various liquors. Over time it developed A life of its own. My grandfather would kiss his hand and place it on the poster of the little green fairy after every jar was sealed or sales were made. I Don't think he saw this as devil worship so much as just a simple good luck ritual. Not too disimilar to his high school basketball team kissing the image of their mascot before a game. He always practiced these superstitions even though he didn't seem to really believe in them.

Fast forward to today. I'm an Ozark trad witch. So of course I now work with this image as if it is the devil himself. He is a devil that rules spring and summer. Drunkenness, poison, lunacy, fairies, and nature. He is associated with law breaking, alcohol, healing, harming, and fertility. With Easter coming up He is on my mind heavily. A time I feed him red dyed eggs symbolizing the blood of christ and the blood of good Christians. I feed him this with intentions of causing those which share the eucharist to lust. Poisoning the church so to speak. I attend mass in spirit form and dip my blessed turkey wish bone down in the communion wine. The turkey is symbolic of love in the Ozarks. And the wishbone is horned like the stang, and my devil. Midnight mass on Easter is filled with drunkenness and sex. Those consuming this spiritually poisoned wine are consumed with lust for others in the church. An orgy ensues in the great house of God. Only for all members to awaken Easter morning with no memory of the incestuous rituals performed with their brothers and sisters in christ. To do such things in the house of God and not confess them (due to not remembering) is damanble. This is my goal as a witch. To bring the witches Sabbath to the church and to pervert the souls of good men.

By turkey wand and lustful stang I complete my work in the devils name.

A call to the Green Devil:

"Envy is his name. Drunkeness and poisoning are his arte. He is Lord of the little people and plants alike; come little green fairy and bring your lust and your lunacy. Green devil rise from the roots below like a serpent. Green devil come down from the tree tops like a booger in the night who takes its flight. Join me in this witching hour oh beast of the green and hear my call to the wild. By my witches flame may it be so."

Look out for a post on the black and red devils later this year. Our horned one changes with the seasons

[thepatristictradition]

Veiling is not about Modesty (and it can even be Immodest)

What is the purpose of Veiling? If you were to look at some other religions, the answer you would get is "modesty". To discuss veiling, we must first discuss Modesty and "modesty". The idea goes, the more of the body covered = the more modest it is. But Christianity (and especially Eastern Orthodox Christianity) is much different than any other religion in the world. Thus, our view on Modesty is much different.

Modesty, in our faith, is not about being covered in the Worldly sense; it is about blending in and going unnoticed. This is where the middlingly correct idea of the "heart posture" comes into play(1). It is hypothetically possible to clad oneself in an ankle-length floral dress and a lovely veil and still be immodest if one is doing it with the intention of attracting the attention of pious men. It is always immodest to dress in a way that provokes, intentionally or unintentionally, such as overly flashy clothing or jewelry, or dress that is very foreign to the culture where you are visiting or residing. Likewise, it is also possible to be modest in a garment that leaves the wearer nearly naked, as in a swimsuit at the beach, where that is the expected attire.

The actual purpose of the Veil, especially in a Prayerful or Liturgical setting, is an expression of a portion of our Theology of the Church, the Eucharist, and Jesus. The Church is a woman, a Wisdom to whom all Priests and Bishops are married. All Orthodox Christians are the bride of Christ, though the men and women among us express this truth in different ways. The Eucharist is, theologically, the fruit of the marital union between the celebrant and the Church. Our Christian theology, down to its very core, is marital. The veil is marital garb.

The primary pieces of scripture Christians cite in favor of Veiling are 1 Corinthian's 11:5, " But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven," (KJV), and 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18, "Rejoice evermore. Pray without ceasing. In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you," (KJV). Taken together, many would say that women must, at least, cover their hair/heads in Church and during prayer in general. Many would further say that this implies women should veil all the time, or at least in public.

But why is that? Is a woman's hair immodest? Is it indecent to show one's hair or head in public? Fortunately, no. No part of the body in Christianity is considered intrinsically indecent or shameful. On the contrary-- every part of the body is valuable and good, and it is only the Fall that brings shame upon them. What is indecent and what is acceptable is determined by the society you find yourself in. If we find ourselves in a community that believes elbows are the height of inflammatory sexuality, I should hope we all cover them with only the thickest of wool shrouds.

In the Old Testament, a woman covering her hair is a symbol of marriage, first and foremost. This is not only true in the Hebraic culture of the OT, but also in most antique cultures across the Middle East and the Mediterranean both in the OT, and in the Gospels and the Epistles. Unlike what many young Orthodox women say, the veil is not a symbol of submission, either-- at least not any more than a wedding ring is today or the veil of Hebrew women was. The veil of a Christian woman is the expression of a theological truth-- wearable ecclesiology and Christology.

1) Much of the discussion of heart posture, especially in protestant circles, is simply an excuse to wear crop tops to Church in the name of personal piety. Another post on this shall follow. A good rule of thumb is that heart posture always condemns, never excuses.

[why-bless-your-heart]

Fun new kind of Dumb Protestant Question!

ie one asked for a friend who has no grounding in any Christian tradition and wants to not be disrespectful to Catholics or the Virgin Mary and fully expected very Protestant me to know the answer to her question!

But it is rather like the one I asked you about writing ficitonal miracles, and something like the one I asked about inventing ficitonal saints/orders so... here goes. My friend is writing a sicence fantasy book about an alternate history where, instead of a heavy Greek/gnostic influence on the early church there was a far, far greater Norst influence on the early church. Also there are plenty of fey/semi-supernatural beings about, and a pocket diminsion that is wrecking general havvoc. The church has a different name and such and having followed a different timeline. So in this alternate history there is an order of nuns, she is not quite setteld on their charter, but it is something like a focus on moral education. Imbuing the people around them with the concepts of forgiveness, hope, chairity ect, with the goal of guiding their souls heavenward. She is concerned about how she envisions the founding of this order. In the mythos of this world a (in universe very real) semi-supernatural being Freya is confronted (and redemed) by an apperation of the Virgin Mary. Freya then repents of claiming to be a god and focuses on leading souls to heaven, becoming the patron saint of the order of nuns in question. My friend is concerned that this set up might be...heretical? Blasphmous? Whatever the word is for an outsider meddling with holy ideas.

Anyway, as this kind of thing is essentially what the northern monks of the single digit centuries IRL did quite a bit, and there doing that is the reason we even have records of most of the Celtic and a lot of the Nordic myths, I didn't think it would be too terrible a transgression...but as I said, dumb protestant here. Care to drop in your two bits?

The way you describe it, this all sounds pretty fun and inoffensive.

Actually offensive would be 1. Attributing anything evil or imperfect to God, mocking or misrepresenting Him, 2. Setting Mary up as contrary to God or portraying her as sinful, 3. Misrepresenting/misusing the Eucharist or any of the other sacraments (see: the Catholic distress r.e. Brom Stoker’s abuse of consecrated hosts in Dracula), 4. Misrepresenting actual Catholic history, persons, and/or orders, mostly due to the black legends & anti-catholic sentiment that we have to deal with outside the realm of fiction already.

Having a semi-supernatural being who repents of her past sins and sets out in service to God is actually a very cool and pretty darn Christian idea. And given that this is already an alternate world/history story from the get-go, I’d say it sounds safe.

[allgirlsareprincesses]

I have a question I hope you can help me with, since I notice you identify as Catholic. Assuming that's still the case, how does the folklore analysis you do with MC fit together with that? Because I struggle to find a way that ideas like shadow integration and light/dark balance can fit together with Christianity, which has so much to say about rejecting temptation, overcoming the flesh, defeating evil and death, etc. There's a scripture that says light and dark cannot coexist, for example. It seems to me that a Christian does not so much integrate their shadow as constantly do battle with it. So these two sets of ideas seem contradictory. How do you square that circle? My approach to this conflict is to simply hold the ideas that disagree with my faith at arm's length. Perhaps you have a different approach.

Thank you so much for your thoughtful question!

I think it's important to start with the disclaimer that I hold some fairly heterodox ideas at this point in my faith journey, and as a result, I have a pretty complicated relationship with the Church and the Mass. But despite my wrestling, this is actually a seeming contradiction I've considered before, so I'll try to explain where I've landed:

First, I'll say that I think our culture's tendency to oversimplify dark as "evil" causes a lot of confusion. Many metaphysical philosophies consider dark and light to be opposite aspects, without ascribing any inherent morality to one or the other. But in Christian thought and literature, over time, dark has come to be associated with evil. So when we read scripture that refers to "darkness," we will interpret that to be evil, even though that metaphor can have only the meaning we project onto it based on our human language and cultural context.

So this is how one specific religion interprets the concept of darkness, but the Jungian shadow is not a religious idea; it is part of a psychological framework. "Darkness" or "the shadow" to a Jungian psychologist contains no inherent morality, it is simply that which is repressed. Granted, we often repress the parts of ourselves that cause us guilt, so we might consider our sins to be part of the shadow, but that doesn't mean they are interchangeable. Not everything we repress is a sin, and not every sin gets repressed. But if we're not acknowledging and confronting those parts of ourselves, then we are incomplete. And worse, repression often leads to those feelings spilling out in harmful ways, projected outward because we refuse to deal with them inwardly.

For example, the priest who was originally supposed to perform my marriage turned out to be embezzling money from his parish to support a gambling addiction. The psychology of addiction tells us that the shame that accompanies it often leads the addict to repress their desires and the reality of their struggle, and this actually fuels the addiction further. So the addiction will just get worse and worse until the person is able to admit they have a problem, then seek help. Recovery means learning our triggers, acknowledging the possibility of relapse, and making amends however possible for harm caused. Sheer willpower alone cannot prevent us acting out our repressed feelings and desires. Only by acknowledging and integrating them can we be whole.

Which brings me to the Eucharist. Regardless of whether you believe in consubstantiation or transubstantiation, the role that this ritual plays is fundamentally the same - we are acting out our union with the Divine Creator by taking the Body and Blood into ourselves. But if we are carrying around our shadow, then there is a part of ourselves we're holding separate, something we can't or won't share with Christ, and that therefore prevents us from being united with Him. This is why we confess before receiving: we acknowledge those sins, the guilt, the feelings that cause harm to ourselves and others, and we atone. Only then can we come to the table as whole people, to consume our God and recommit to acting in love.

Each person's assimilation of or negotiation with their shadow is different. We have to sort through whether we've repressed something because of a deep moral belief or because of shame projected onto us by the culture. And one's religion will play a role in that. But undertaking that process will always leave us more whole when we're done, freeing us to bring our entire selves to our faith practice.

I hope this helps, and thanks again for asking!

[ethicalgnome]

Flesh and Christianity

Someone asked me to make a video about the intersection between the Flesh and the Eucharist a while back, and I will, but I also want to scream my broader thoughts about Flesh and religion into the void for a moment. Pardon any rambling, I find this very interesting but there is also a LOT to cover and I’m frantically writing this at 1am. Everything I say about theology is, for the most part, a generalisation or simplification, because there is no way in hell that I’m fitting the entirety of the Catholic theology on the body into a tumblr post.

Disclaimers over.

In episode 130, we hear Lucia Wright describe the ‘hole filled with meat’. We later learn that this was the Flesh ritual, something that Gertrude calls ‘The Last Feast.’ The connection to the Last Supper may be a bit obvious, but I do think it establishes that the Flesh does tie into Christianity, both symbolically (‘this bread is my body’), and perhaps more spiritually. I’ll get to that in a bit, but there’s a more to say about Episode 130 first.

Gnosticism is a lesser known branch of Christianity, mostly by design (persecution on grounds of heresy will do that to you). The relevant part is that Gnostics believed in an entity that oversaw and shaped the physical word; an entity known as the Demiurge. Some Gnostics believed the Demiurge to be malevolent, and possibly the entity known as Yahweh/Jehovah (heresy indeed), which is an incredibly contentious can of worms for another day. As Lucia Wright puts it, as it’s the overseer of the physical, the Demiurge could be referred to as ‘The God of the Flesh’. Therefore, an old Gnostic temple being chosen as the location for the Last Feast seems to be more than just a coincidence, or a connection in name only, but something more spiritual. Therefore, its my opinion that the Flesh is not just connected to Christianity, but is integral to it - at least in the TMA universe. 

The human body is so topical in Christianity that it has its own branch of theology. The body was created in God’s own image (and isn’t that a Fleshy concept in and of itself? Our bodies aren’t “ours” - they have been created and shaped by some entity beyond our understanding). Humans, in Christian theology, are broadly divided into body and soul. Our souls are what make us divine - our bodies hold us back, and are generally considered to be what carries our sins. ‘The flesh is weak.’ The body is what tempts us towards our whims; food and sex, gluttony and lust. Without our useless sinful flesh, we would be far closer to God (incidentally, this was also the thinking in several early neo-Platonic Islamic schools of thought, but that’s not really relevant and is just the philosophy nerd in me speaking). Our bodies are but vessels; for our souls, and for the weight of human sin, always tempting us to keep sinning. This leaves a door for the Flesh wide open; because the idea of our bodies being evil, or even of being designed by another entity entirely (the Demiurge for Gnostics, Yahweh/God for most other branches of Christianity) is objectively horrifying, and ties very neatly into what can make the Flesh so scary. It’s not just freaky meat - it’s freaky evil meat that’s outside of our control. The flesh is sinful, the flesh is transformed - this bread is the body of Jesus, this wine is his blood.

If you’re in a branch of Christianity that follows Communion and believes it to be a case of transubstantiation (bread and wine turning into the body and blood of Christ), you essentially commit religious cannibalism every Sunday during the Eucharist. If you deconstruct the Eucharist, it’s a veritable horror flick - a group of people enter a room, eat bread that is really the flesh of a human body that died two millennia ago, and drink wine that is really the blood of that same body. More than that, it’s transformed; regular food and drink turn into meat, and everyone present seems to accept that. The transmutation of the flesh, and the consumption of a human body, especially in such a holy and revered setting, feels very Fleshlike to me. This is why I consider the Flesh to have been one of the entities present in Episode 20 - Father Burroughs unwittingly committing cannibalism during Holy Communion is such a powerful image of the intersection between the Flesh and Christianity, that it made me go down this spiraling rabbit-hole of thoughts.

To be clear, there are huge discrepancies between various Christian groups on how they interpret both the Eucharist and the human body; what I describe here is mostly the Catholic interpretation  (though it applies to quite a few groups), because Father Burroughs was Catholic and it makes all my theorising more plot-relevant. 

Anyways, that’s it for now. Thank you, void, for listening.

[gayleviticus]

I was skimming thru the gospels recently, trying to get a feel for how they're structured for myself, and smth that caught my eye are what events each Gospel use to open Jesus' ministry after the initial baptism, gathering disciples etc

Matthew, wanting to present Jesus as a second Moses, opens with the Beatitudes, and the sermon on the mount. Jesus is an authoritative teacher of God's Law, the Torah, and how he tells us to live is important.

Mark similarly opens with Jesus teaching in a synagogue, except - we aren't told any of what he said! But we know he teaches with authority, an authority he demonstrates in a very dramatic way by casting a demon from a possessed man. Jesus is God's representative, one who speaks and acts with authority, and yet there's something mysterious about him that can't yet be grasped.

and it's interesting, bc it's sometimes said by people trying to push back against a hyper-theologised protestantism that neglects the social justice implications of the Gospel, that christians spend too much time focusing on the epistles theologising about who Jesus is, than the Gospels which tell us about his moral teachings. But if we accept such a binary division (which I don't), Mark is much closer to the latter than the former; he gives us some teaching, for sure, but much of his Gospel is about establishing Jesus' authority not just through miraculous works but through his Passion and Resurrection.

Luke, meanwhile, opens with Jesus at the synagogue in Nazareth, applying the words of the Prophet Isaiah to himself to declare the Spirit of the Lord is upon him to proclaim liberation and the year of the Lord's favour - in response to which he is rejected by his own hometown. This is doing a lot of things at once; firmly placing Jesus in the tradition of the OT prophet hated by others for speaking the truth and championing social justice, but also foreshadowing Luke's interest in the eventual way Christianity was rejected by Jews and went to Gentiles (which btw i acknowledge this raises issues of supersessionism, but we do not have time to unpack those; suffice to say Luke wrote with a specific agenda at a specific point in time when there was a v specific relationship btwn Jews, Gentiles, and Christianity as a Jewish sect).

Finally, John opens with... Jesus turning water to wine? It almost seems like a parody next to the other gospels! Next to handing down the law, casting out demons, and fulfilling biblical prophecy, throwing out some extra booze at a party seems rather indulgent.

Jesus even seems to acknowledge this "What concern is that to you and me? My hour has not yet come." The Son of gOD should be making a big, dramatic debut, not performing party tricks. And yet he does it anyway.

I'm sure there's much to be said about the theological significance of this - a reference to the Eucharist, a fulfillment of OT themes of the great eschatological banquet with wine running freely, 'the best wine saved for last' as symbolising Jesus.

But what strikes me most is how low-stakes it is - and it's not as if the rest of John is exactly slice-of-life; unlike the other 3 gospels people are much more consistently out to get Jesus here. And yet as his first great sign, through the miracle of water into wine Jesus celebrates the goodness of God's creation, of wine to make man's heart glad, of weddings to join two people in commitment, of parties to celebrate family and friendship. In a sense he's hallowing everyday life here; the lack of drama is the point.

And I think it makes for a poignant book-end with the epilogue to John, which involves no dramatic ascension to heaven as in Luke, nor the giving of the Great Commission as in Matthew, nor the ambiguous cliffhanger ending of Luke. It involves Jesus having breakfast on the beach with his besties. Jesus' ministry in John starts with a wedding and ends with brunch with the bros.

[paula-of-christ]

Veiling And Why We Should Stop "Discerning" About It.

Now this is definitely not a "new" idea that I or others have posted about or discussed. However, it is a subject that has been on my mind for quite some time recently as I have joined new Catholic women's facebook groups and traditional circles.

There is this idea of discerning about levels of modesty - specifically about veiling - before doing it. Women come in contact with other women who practice this ancient tradition, and then the reasons for why one does so, becoming enamored with the idea of doing it themselves. But there is a pause in doing so, wondering if it is 'right' simply because they are compelled by other people's experiences with this devotion.

However, and when I started to veil but before I covered daily I was definitely guilty of this, women then try to ask God whether or not they should do it. And when no amount of discernment or prayer yield a direct answer, they turn to other women to ask if they think the individual should practice this devotion. (I am tempted to go on a tangent about discernment in general here, but will save that for another post.)

Imagine for a moment of a young man discerning whether to buy a certain car. He has thought and prayed about it, gone to adoration, prayed with relevant scripture, read other men's reasons for buying the car, he can afford the car. He feels compelled to buy the car for these reasons, the exposure he has had to it intellectually, but will not make the leap towards going to a dealership and actually buying the car. He has made all of the relevant steps towards buying it, except for actually doing so, and only because he is not sure if it is "God's Will" since he has not heard a clear sign of whether or not to buy a car.

We can take this to a more similar analogy by replacing buying the car with some other spiritual practice, such as praying a certain prayer daily, attending daily Mass, how frequently to attend the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and the like. It becomes a little absurd even with other spiritual things. How is one supposed to know what devotions to follow in one's own life, when the Magisterium has dictated that individual devotions are up to one's own senses and conscience?

Simply put, by trying to do them. Obviously you would not try all of them at once, but you won't know if you like doing a devotion until you try to do it. There is no intellectual discernment for a devotion, unless it will impact your life in a significant way (such as fasting on a certain day of the week, which would require forethought and planning around in some cases).

If, of course, the worry is from a sense of judgement from others, rather than a spiritual pull away from a certain devotion, you must ask yourself why you would be afraid of living out a devotion to Christ? Wearing a headcovering is akin to wearing other religious gear, if you do not need to discern wearing a shirt with a cross on it, then why discern whether to cover your head? The assumption being that you bought the shirt in order to wear to show as an outward sign of your faith. Similarly, a headcovering does the same, as it provides an outward sign of faith and depending on type or location, modesty as well.

I will note, veiling for Mass being different than daily modesty headcovering. While one is much more for the respect owed to the Eucharist, the other is a level of modesty. There is some level of necessary discernment with the latter, as the Christian faith has no Magisterial or Ritual rules for the headcovering of women that does not originate from the Old Testament, of which we are no longer bound due to the fulfillment of. But this discernment is not whether or not one should participate in the tradition, but what that looks like in an individuals life, since you mostly have to make your own "rules" for it.

Still, the connotation of discernment in the religious sense is necessarily to be reserved for the discernment of serious matters such as vocations.

My final thought on this is that veiling is not that serious. It does not require weeks or months of thinking about and discerning, as to start or stop veiling, will not remove or add grace to you. It is fundamentally a practice. It was made popular by wide-spread piety (or in many cases "piety"), and was cultural rather than spiritual. It is only very recently in the 19th and 20th centuries that we see the removal of regular headcoverings for women, a drop in the bucket of human civilization, and Christian history as well. If you see someone's position on veiling and so then feel compelled to do so yourself, just do it. You don't have to get anything special, especially if you have fashion scarves from the late 00's or early 2010's. If, on the off chance you get questioned, just answer honestly that you're trying it out to see if you like it. If you don't, just don't do it again. It will not harm your relationship with God to not do so, because likely you feel compelled to do so, because you already have a rightly ordered relationship with Him.