#church's shoes

[lazycranberrydoodles]

transfems your wangxian

[nakitacatart]

Started working on this for the contest and got in my head about it. Twice.

[wykart]

Who is Mrs Flood and why is she the Rani?

[nethnad]

doctor who christmas special where the doctor and the master swordfight in a church aisle WHEN

[mgdln333]

[dimsilver]

☀️

[es-eternalstyle]

[suitmana]

i will be the first to admit that this might be reaching a bit. also discussions of religious concepts in lgts ahead

so catholicism in lgts is explored through the struggles of living in a small catholic town like kieferberg, and literally everything about walpurga, the forest deity turned saint. but imo there's also something to be said about how elise obtains the tender flesh: this might be a reflection of the sacrament of the eucharist as understood during the medieval era.

but what is the eucharist anyway? 

in catholic doctrine the eucharist is supposed to be the body of christ manifested through transubstantiation: the transformation of bread and wine into his flesh and blood respectively. this is based on the events of the last supper in the bible, wherein before his death jesus offers his body to his disciples through the bread and wine that they share. thing is, current understanding of transubstantiation is moreso in a metaphysical sense: catholics who do believe in it don’t actually think that they’re eating jesus’ physical body.

that wasn't always the case with medieval catholicism, however. there were theorists like st aquinas and berengar who argued for a metaphysical transubstantiation, but powerful church officials like cardinal humbert (who actually forced berengar to recount his claims) also believed that the faithful partaking in the eucharist were actually eating the literal, physical flesh and blood of jesus. there was quite a bit of concern too because of this: the body of christ, torn apart and chewed on by not just the faithful, but potential sinners? 

the average catholic of that time probably didn't care much for the specifics of how transubstantiation worked (either way, the bread is/represents jesus, whether or not that was physical or not), but the point is there was an ongoing debate—if only among high-ranking church officials and theologians—about what the eucharist really was. now keep in mind that aforementioned literal physicality of the eucharist, and how similarly that plays out to the relevant witching hour segments in lgts.

i want to first highlight the scene where the crows in murim's domain rip out parts of elise's hair for the wheat testament:

and the aftermath:

they sure are hungry, huh? and the way they get at elise is pretty violent, judging by her screams and the sounds of tearing flesh. their carnal hunger, expressed through their lines and the violence in how they form the wheat testament from her hair, brings to mind similar fears of an animalistic, near sacrilegious ingestion of a certain sacred body turned bread, only this time realized in a demonic trial. in other words, the entire trial subverts christ's supposed physical presence in the bread. besides, it's stated outright that elise is meant to physically combine a piece of her body—her hair—into that wheat. 

she does just that in the windmill:

her hair baked into the (apparently unleavened) bread is the tender flesh that the crows hungered for, that would eventually find its way onto ozzy's table.

so the process of acquiring the tender flesh seems to imitate that transubstantiation in the celebration of the eucharist. if that's the case, i wonder why ozzy and his minions would design them this way…

btw here's my sources for medieval transubstantiation (despite my unhinged rambling i did do a bit of research):

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23964057 (Ego Berengarius by Chadwick, H., 1989)

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/some-later-medieval-theories-of-the-eucharist-9780199658169 (Some Later Medieval Theories of the Eucharist by Adams, M. M., 2010)

[dreveel]

Goth Collection:

{Credit} - {Credit} - {Credit}

{Credit} - {Credit} - {Credit} 

{Credit} - {Credit} - {Credit} 

[psykhet]

churchs x miu miu

[momentsbeforemass]

Lived faith

When I think about why I became a Catholic, the teachings of the Church were an important part. But they weren’t the first part.

The two things that drew me in were beauty – as in the beauty of the great cathedrals and old churches – and the witness of lived faith.

Not the lived faith of the official saints. But the lived faith of the Catholics I saw.

The teachings of the Church? They became important to me, only after I realized that they were the wellspring from which that lived faith flowed. That they were the reason for that lived faith.

It was only after the fact that I understood that the lived faith had evangelized me. For the most part, that work was done by people who had no idea they were doing it. That they were preaching to me with their lives.

They were just living their lives. And I was watching their every move.

They prepared me to learn about the Faith. Because I had already seen it in action.

As Catholics, we have no idea who is paying attention to us. Who is looking to us to tell them what our Faith really means. By how we live.

Not just what it means in the big moments or on Sunday. But also what it means on any random Tuesday.

It’s what Jesus is talking about in today’s Gospel. The power of our lived example is why Jesus gives such dire warnings about misleading others, about causing them to sin.

Not just by what we say. But by what we do.

Because – whether we mean to or not – we’re always preaching.

For better or for worse, the most powerful sermon is a lived faith.

Today’s Readings

[bitchfitch]

I'm still in the mood to do photo reffo practice, so I'm going to go repaint screenshots of taskmaster bc every single frame of that show looks like a surrealist composition.

If there's any specific moments you'd like to recommend pls drop the series/episode number so I can find it dhdhhd

[rabbits-of-negative-euphoria]

Evangelicals: Taylor Swift is blasphemous! me: yes Evangelicals: so stop listening to her! me: nah Evangelicals: WHY NOT? me: because my blorbo in the story of redemption I'm writing is a blasphemer and this song really captures the nuances of his idiosyncrasies--

[cha1cedony]

Thinking about Darryl and Casey. again

[shurismainbxtch]

Wifey stuntin on these hoes

@esmagazine on ig

[thepastisalreadywritten]

This Saturday, at St James's Palace in London, the man most of us have known all our lives as Prince Charles will be officially proclaimed King following the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II.

The fact he will be the oldest man in history to accede to the throne has been much remarked upon; the fact he will also be the most stylish, less so.

Those of us who care about such things can play an easy game. What is your favourite King Charles III style moment?

Maybe it’s the time he wore a western suit (in a jazzy shade of millennial pink) with a check shirt, a bolo tie and a quartz-hued ten-gallon hat on an official tour of Canada in the late 1970s.

Or perhaps it’s the time he wore a short-sleeved baby-blue safari shirt with a pair of chinos and some riding boots to the polo.

Our personal favourite? The time he brandished his considerable wealth with no shortage of rakishness by pairing a yolk-yellow Hermès sweater (complete with cartoonish “Happy Hermès” logo) with a chambray shirt and a pair of skintight white jeans to, you guessed it, a polo match at the Guards Polo Club in Windsor.

What people tend to forget about Charles is that he was a bit of a style icon back in the day.

But it's something that will be brought back to our collective consciousness as the outpouring of grief and tributes from around the world slowly give way to looking at the future of the monarchy, which Charles now leads after the longest wait in royal history.

Take the forest-green and cherry-red shirt Charles wore to play in a charity polo match in the late Seventies.

Imbued with a prepped-up, Eton-boy-gone-bad vibe (not least because Charles chose to wear it quite so close-cut), it wouldn’t be difficult to imagine Frank Ocean – or even the fash pack’s favourite skater Blondey McCoy – wearing the same thing today and looking every bit the wavy young disruptor doing it.

Then there’s that full-on, Yves Saint Laurent-inspired taupe safari suit he wore on a state visit to Australia in 1985.

Both of those looks exemplify Charles’s acute understanding of the soft power demonstrated by an excellent cut.

The King so often opted – and still opts – for muted shades over showier ones and tends to pick garments that focus on function over form.

This attention to detail is something those studying the King have often remarked on.

The man who played him in the The Crown, Josh O'Connor, said:

“Whenever he gets out of a car, he checks his cufflink, checks his pocket and then waves. [It’s] the same movement every time.”

It’s this sense of consistency that defines Charles' unique personal flair.

“In every photo you see, he has great style. The shirt, tie and pocket square combinations are put together so well, with a great eye for detail,” says Steven Quin, retail director at Turnbull & Asser.

“He’s not afraid of colour and he clearly wears what he feels comfortable in and does not follow trends. HRH has always worn a double-breasted jacket.

I remember reading a quote from him where he stated that his style 'comes back into fashion every 25 years’. That still rings true. His elegance is timeless.”

The other important thing to note about Charles’ very specific mode of dressing is that he’s loyal to the brands he likes and, perhaps most importantly, he invests in quality.

He has his shirts made at the aforementioned Jermyn Street shirtmaker Turnbull & Asser.

He wears handmade shoes from Northampton shoemaker Crockett & Jones.

He gets his ceremonial gear from Ede & Ravenscroft.

He alternates having his suits made at Gieves & Hawkes and Anderson & Sheppard. It’s a roster of loyalty many British men will probably relate to.

“[King] Charles is a total inspiration. His taste is impeccable, almost always in double-breasted jackets, looking resplendent but totally at ease with a tie and pocket square,” says John Harrison, creative director at Gieves & Hawkes.

”He’s also done more than anyone in the public eye to promote the idea of bespoke garments and handmade shoes being investments, to last forever with proper care and the odd repair or patch-up. He makes us all want to dress like a better man.”

Ultimately, though, it’s the confidence King Charles displays with his wardrobe decisions – a certain ruffled indifference – that makes his style so covetable.

Though today he’s best known for wearing a double-breasted suit better than any man on earth (fact), once upon a time his collars were curled, his shirts were French tucked, his jumpers were oversized.

Such flourishes are beyond him now, and not just because he's a man of 73.

After Saturday's official proclamation will come much more pomp and ceremony to sit him on the throne: a second meeting of the Accession Council in which he must swear an oath to preserve the Church of Scotland (a tradition dating back to the early 18th century).

A fanfare of trumpets from the balcony above St James's Palace, gun salutes in Hyde Park and from naval ships at sea, and the national anthem sung with the words “God Save the King.”

All of these before the coronation itself, at which Charles will have the crown placed on his head before a global audience of millions.

He will dress according to tradition throughout, in suits of impeccable shape and cut.

But as he goes forward in the role he has waited a lifetime to play, something of the King's fastidious but playful character will come back into what he wears and how he wears it.

It will be part of his legacy, wherever that may lead us.