#anglo-catholic stuff

[theproductivegirl]

Wow, I just spent about a half an hour reading through a list of Anglo- Catholic / Episcopal saints. And I loved every single story that I read, from Father Jellicoe working hard after WW1 to create better housing for the slum poor.

To civil rights champions like seminary student Jonathan Daniels who shielded a young black girl from a shotgun blast that was aimed at her, resulting in his death.

To the Anglo-Catholic slum priests, like Father Lowder who helped set up care during a cholera epidemic in London. The public of the time so respected him that they called him "Father" which at that time was unusual for a non Roman Catholic.

Quite an inspiring group of people to say the least. :)

[skrunksthatwunk]

actually i'm still thinking about the moral orel finale.

he has a cross on his wall. do you know how much i think about that bc it's a lot.

a lot of stories ((auto)biographical or fictional) centering escape from abusive/fundamentalist christianity result in the lead characters leaving behind christianity entirely. and that makes complete sense! people often grow disillusioned with the associated systems and beliefs, and when it was something used to hurt them or something so inseparable from their abuse that they can't engage with it without hurting, it makes total sense that they would disengage entirely. and sometimes they just figure out that they don't really believe in god/a christian god/etc. a healthy deconstruction process can sometimes look like becoming an atheist or converting to another religion. it's all case by case. (note: i'm sure this happens with other religions as well, i'm just most familiar with christian versions of this phenomenon).

but in orel's case, his faith was one of the few things that actually brought him comfort and joy. he loved god, y'know? genuinely. and he felt loved by god and supported by him when he had no one else. and the abuses he faced were in how the people in his life twisted religion to control others, to run away from themselves, to shield them from others, etc. and often, orel's conflicts with how they acted out christianity come as a direct result of his purer understanding of god/jesus/whatever ("aren't we supposed to be like this/do that?" met with an adult's excuse for their own behavior or the fastest way they could think of to get orel to leave them alone (i.e. orel saying i thought we weren't supposed to lie? and clay saying uhhh it doesn't count if you're lying to yourself)). the little guy played catch with god instead of his dad, like.. his faith was real, and his love was real. and i think it's a good choice to have orel maintain something that was so important to him and such a grounding, comforting force in the midst of. All That Stuff Moralton Was Up To/Put Him Through. being all about jesus was not the problem, in orel's case.

and i know i'm mostly assuming that orel ended up in a healthier, less rigid version of christianity, but i feel like that's something that was hinted at a lot through the series, that that's the direction he'd go. when he meditates during the prayer bee and accepts stephanie's different way to communicate, incorporating elements of buddhism into his faith; when he has his I AM A CHURCH breakdown (removing himself from the institution and realizing he can be like,, the center of his own faith? taking a more individualistic approach? but Truly Going Through It at the same time), his acceptance (...sometimes) of those who are different from him and condemned by the adults of moralton (stephanie (lesbian icon stephanie my beloved), christina (who's like. just a slightly different form of fundie protestant from him), dr chosenberg (the jewish doctor from otherton in holy visage)). his track record on this isn't perfect, but it gets better as orel starts maturing and picking up on what an absolute shitfest moralton is. it's all ways of questioning the things he's been taught, and it makes sense that it would lead to a bigger questioning as he puts those pieces together more. anyway i think part of his growth is weeding out all the lost commandments of his upbringing and focusing on what faith means to him, and what he thinks it should mean. how he wants to see the world and how he wants to treat people and what he thinks is okay and right, and looking to religion for guidance in that, not as like. a way to justify hurting those he's afraid or resentful of, as his role models did.

he's coming to his own conclusions rather than obediently, unquestioningly taking in what others say. but he's still listening to pick out the parts that make sense to him. (edit/note: and it's his compassion and his faith that are the primary motivations for this questioning and revisal process, both of individual cases and, eventually, the final boss that is christianity.) it makes perfect sense as the conclusion to his character arc and it fits the overall approach of the show far better. it's good is what i'm saying.

and i think it's important to show that kind of ending, because that's a pretty common and equally valid result of deconstruction. and i think it cements the show's treatment of christianity as something that's often (and maybe even easily) exploited, but not something inherently bad. something that can be very positive, even. guys he even has a dog he's not afraid of loving anymore. he's not afraid of loving anyone more than jesus and i don't think it's because he loves this dog less than bartholomew (though he was probably far more desperate for healthy affection and companionship when he was younger). i think it's because he figures god would want him to love that dog. he's choosing to believe that god would want him to love and to be happy and to be kind. he's not afraid of loving in the wrong way do you know how cool that is he's taking back control he's taking back something he loves from his abusers im so normal

[lord-aldhelm]

Saint Aldhelm of Malmesbury

Although most of the characters in The Last Kingdom and The Saxon Stories were based on real historical people, Aldhelm was a completely fictional character just made up for the story. However, there was a Saint Aldhelm, a man of historical significance in Anglo-Saxon England. He is the patron saint of musicians and songwriters.

Aldhelm was born in 639 in Wessex. As a young boy he was educated in Canterbury and studied Latin and Greek literature, and could also read and write Hebrew. When he returned to Wessex, he joined the monks at Malmesbury and became a popular teacher, and people would journey from as far as France and Scotland to learn from him. He also loved to write poetry, and composed music and sang. He could play the harp, fiddle, and pipes. Aldhelm was well known for his theatrical way of preaching, and would sing in addition to preach to get the attention of the commonfolk outside of church. Over a century later, King Alfred regarded him highly as one of the great poets and bards of his time, and wrote stories about him.

In 683, Aldhelm was appointed the Abbot of Malmesbury, where he continued to make it a seat of education. He enlarged the monastery and built several churches and founded more monasteries in the area. In 705 he was made Bishop of Sherborne, where he rebuilt the church and oversaw the construction of more churches and a nunnery.

On 25th May 709, Aldhelm died at Doulting in Somerset, and after his death he was sainted. May 25 is a feast day for St Aldhelm. The Church of St Aldhelm (built in the 12th century) and St Aldhelm's Well in Somerset are dedicated to him. St Aldhelm has a flag in his honor, with a white cross on a red background.

Name Meaning

The name Aldhelm and the Old English version "Ealdhelm", is derived from the Germanic elements ald "old" and helm "helmet, protection".

Links:

Wikipedia Article about Saint Aldhelm

Aethelstan Museum

New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia

St Aldhelm's

Early British Kingdoms biography

Catholic Online article about Aldhelm

OrthoChristian.com article about St Aldhelm

[alliluyevas]

since it’s apparently comparative religion monday it’s so interesting how the a lot of denominations vary so much regionally/by congregation to say nothing of high church/low church etc. like i went to palm sunday services when i was in utah and i felt really overdressed because a ton of people were there in like jeans. and also because there were a bunch of mormons out on the street heading to/from their own services and they were dressed more like i was. so i guess i come from a region where you dress up more for church and utah episcopalians don’t. i imagine that’s probably affected by being part of a left-of-center church in mormon central too.

[anarchotolkienist]

you’re attacking that neopagan kind of birthstone post about druid plants, but could you please elaborate or at least clarify the explicit trope that is being used that has been historically weaponized?

I used to spend about a good third of my time on this godforsaken website attacking that idea, but sure, I'll do it again. This will be a bit of an effortpost, so I'll stick it under the readmore

There is a notion of 'celts' or Gaels as being magicial and somehow deeply in touch with nature and connected to pre-Christian worldviews that the people who decided to make up the "Celtic tree astrology" used. This is also why Buffy used Irish Gaelic as the language of the demons, why Warhammer uses Gaelic as Elvish, why garbled Scottish Gaelic is used by Wiccans as the basis for their new religious construct, why people call themselves Druids to go an say chants in bad Welsh in Stonehenge, or Tursachan Chalanais, or wherever, etc etc. This stuff is everywhere in popular culture today, by far the dominant view of Celtic language speaking peoples. Made up neopagan nonsense is the only thing you find if you go looking for Gaelic folklore, unless you know where to look, and so on and so on. I could multiply examples Endless, and in fact have throughout the lifespan of this blog, and probably will continue to.

To make a long history extremely brief (you can ask me for sources on specifics, or ask me to expand if you're interested), this is directly rooted in a mediaeval legalistic discussion in Catholic justifications for the expansionist policies of the Normans, especially in Ireland, who against the vigourous protestation of the Church in Ireland claimed that the Gaelic Irish were practically Pagan in practice and that conquest against fellow Christians was justified to bring them in like with the Church. That this was nonsense I hope I don't need to state. Similar discourses about the Gaels in Scotland exist at the same time, as is clear from the earliest sources we have postdating the Gaelic kingdom of Alba becoming Scotland discussing the 'coastal Scots' - who speak Ynglis (early Scots) and are civilised - and the 'forest Scots' (who speak 'Scottis' (Middle Gaelic) and have all the hallmarks of barbarity. This discourse of Gaelic savagery remains in place fairly unchanged as the Scottish and then British crowns try various methods for integrating Gaeldom under the developing early state, provoking constant conflict and unrest, support certain clans and chiefs against others and generally massively upset and destabilise life among the Gaels both in Scotland and Ireland. This campaign, which is material in root but has a superstructure of Gaelic savagery and threat justifying it develops through attempts at assimilation, more or less failed colonial schemes in Leòdhas and Ìle, the splitting of the Gaelic Irish from the Gaelic Scots through legal means and the genocide of the Irish Gaels in Ulster, eventually culminates in the total ban on Gaelic culture, ethnic cleansing and permanent military occupation of large swathes of Northern Scotland, and the destruction of the clan system and therefore of Gaelic independence from the Scottish and British state, following the last rising in 1745-6.

What's relevant here is that the attitude of Gaelic barbarity, standing lower on the civilisational ladder than the Anglo Saxons of the Lowlands and of England, was continuously present as a justification for all these things. This package included associations with the natural world, with paganisms, with emotion, and etc. This set of things then become picked up on by the developing antiquarian movement and early national romantics of the 18th century, when the Gaels stop being a serious military threat to the comfortable lives of the Anglo nobility and developing bourgeoise who ran the state following the ethnic cleansing after Culloden and permanent occupation of the Highlands (again, ongoing to this day). They could then, as happened with other colonised peoples, be picked up on and romanticised instead, made into a noble savage, these perceived traits which before had made them undesirable now making them a sad but romantic relic of an inexorably disappearing past. It is no surprise that Sir Walter Scott (a curse upon him and all his kin) could make Gaels the romantic leads of his pseudohistorical epics at the exact same time that Gaels were being driven from their traditional lands in their millions and lost all traditional land rights. These moves are related. This tradition is what's picked up on by Gardner when he decides to use mangled versions of Gaelic Catholic practice (primarily) as collected by the Gaelic folklorist Alasdair MacIlleMhìcheil as the coating for Wicca, the most influential neo-pagan "religion" to claim a 'Celtic' root and the base of a lot of oncoming nonsense like that Celtic Tree Astrology horseshit that started this whole thing, and give it a pagan coat of paint while also adding some half-understood Dharmic concepts (three-fold law anyone?) and a spice of deeply racist Western Esotericism to the mix. That's why shit like that is directly harmful, not just historically but in the present total blotting out of actually existing culture of Celtic language speakers and their extremely precarious communities today.

If you want to read more, I especially recommend Dr. Silke Stroh's work Gaelic Scotland in the Colonial Imaginary, Dr. Aonghas MacCoinnich's book Plantation and Civility in the North-Atlantic World, the edited collection Mio-rún Mór nan Gall on Lowland-Highland divide, the Gaelic writer known in English as Ian Crichton Smith's essay A real people in a real place on these impacts on Gaelic speaking communities in the 20th century, Dr. Donnchadh Sneddons essay on Gaelic racial ideas present in Howard and Lovecrafts writings, and Dr. James Hunter's The Making of the Crofting Community for a focus on the clearings of Gaels after the land thefts of the late 18th and early 19th century.

@grimdr an do chaill mi dad cudromach, an canadh tu?

[anghraine]

nelayn replied to this post:

Bleeh... My current experience as an immigrant has been like... "I am very much "white" and thus perceived as part of the (British) majority but that also I end up flattening all of my cultural and ethnic characteristics in day-to-day life in order to (succesfully) blend into the background of a dominant (Anglo) culture". That must get even weirder in a US context (and must have been really hard for your grandmother!)

Yeah, that's really familiar! My grandmother can be seen as a "normal" old white lady here and very much is in many ways, but also as "ethnic" in ways that are vaguely embarrassing and which she's often quietly repressed (and she is not a quiet person!). She pretty much actively assimilated into my grandfather's Irish-American family as a young woman and, at the same time, maintained her ties to the local Greek communities, and has been thrilled that one of my cousins and I actually ended up interested in her experiences and background. But it's a very unobtrusive thing despite everyone knowing her general history. Like, last year she called and admitted to the small rebellion at age 87 of sending me my yearly package of Greek pastries to align with the traditional Orthodox calendar instead of the Catholic one (she formally converted to Catholicism in 1957, I think?).

And, yes, it's usually possible here as well to be taken for Generic White Person without much difficulty, especially now. But in my experience, there is a certain weirdness among some of the, hm, more or less Anglo crowd if the "ethnic whites" make a point of doing things differently from more mainstream white US culture, and especially if they prioritize preservation of their particular subcultures above racist solidarity with whiteness more broadly.

Also in my experience, most people here who don't have ties to Greek-American communities use "Greek" in a way that is almost always completely divorced from any living Greek culture or Greek people of any nationality who have existed in well over a millennium.

When people here begin a sentence with something like "the Greeks believed" it's almost invariably about a sort of western fandomized soundbites version of ancient Greece and no other part of Greek history. Even when people are talking about more recent history like WWII, you get stuff about how much the Nazis loved "the Greeks" or "Greek art" or "Greek culture" without any acknowledgment that "Greek culture" as understood and fetishized by German Nazis does not correspond to the broader reality of Greek culture, art, people, anything. And I've almost never heard it accompanied by any reference at all to what this supposed love for Greeks meant in practice during the Nazi occupation.

So it's like, nobody was going to e.g. use slurs or violence against me when I mentioned having a Greek grandmother in high school. My classmates just went, "huh, really? You don't look like a philosopher!" All this is not The Real Racism of America or anything, nor necessarily universal at all, but I do find it really uncomfortable and alienating in the context of my specific family experiences.

I don't know how much of this you've experienced where you are! For me, the whole "Greek" as interchangeable with "westernized -> Anglicized -> Americanized ancient Greek" thing (when it's not just. fucking university fraternities) has been pretty inescapable. I guess it's more frustrating because in my particular (maternal) family, I had a distinct impression that anything about me that could specifically derive from my grandmother's culture or ethnicity was considered obtrusive or embarrassing or unattractive. My mother's family outright said many times that my grandmother's maiden name is objectively unpronounceable, etc etc.

And my grandmother repressed so much that it took a long time to realize just how connected to the local Greek-American community she is, while my bio father (her son) knew basically nothing. He had never eaten any Greek food (even baklava!) until I recommended a restaurant to him after his mother had been sending me food for years.

Were her family's objections more along the lines of "he's the wrong kind of Christian and from a different culture" variety?

More or less, I think! I recently found out that her mother, who was definitely caught up in the Greek-American community, was married after my great-grandfather died to a different immigrant from Greece (and a nearby area) born in the 1890s who also worked on the railroads, and that guy is listed as my grandmother's father in some documents—but it's definitely a different man, and she's never mentioned him or her stepsister through him. So her family definitely had a preference for the girls staying within the community, finding nice Greek Orthodox men to marry, all of that, and she went off and instead got pregnant and married my grandfather at age 20 after converting to Catholicism.

(Converting didn't keep her in-laws from looking down on her, however. Some of them still do, even, which has always seemed wild to me from a bunch of Irish-Americans only a couple generations removed from starving in County Cork, but I guess "not revisiting what we experienced on today's immigrants" has never been a priority for a lot of Irish-Americans.)

(Obviously I have no experience or exposure to the kind of WASPy attitudes and racism and "othering" you're talking about. I'm sorry you (and others in your family) have to deal with that, even at this level.)

Thank you! And like I said in my other message, I appreciate your help and patience immensely, especially as a US American who's not only far off in the diaspora but in circumstances that are messy and fraught given the specifics of my family history, the people involved, the oddities around my grandmother particularly, etc. It's made a big difference.

[thurifer-at-heart]

Blog Introduction!

Greetings! I go by Julian (they/she); I'm a queer Episcopalian college student studying philosophy and applying to divinity school/seminary.

This is a blog about open and affirming Christianity, Episcopalian and Anglo-Catholic spirituality, theology, and Christian mysticism. I will be posting passages from books I'm reading, random musings, prayers, reflections, art, poetry, photos, and other nerdy stuff. I love reading, praying the Daily Office, thurifering, musicals, and tea.

I created this blog not only to share my spiritual journey with others, but also to support and connect with other LGBTQ+ Christians and allies. Progressive Christians need to be more vocal about their faith (and existence) because we're often in the difficult position of being rejected or mistrusted by both sides of our identity. Many people don't even know we exist! This blog is an attempt to change that.

It makes me sad and angry that the name of Christ has been so thoroughly misused for bigotry and hatred instead of love. I want to take part in pushing back against this situation. I have hope for a better future, in which we seek and serve Christ in all persons.

Currently reading:

Life Together by Dietrich Bonhoeffer (translated by John W. Doberstein)

The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ by Fleming Rutledge

Life in Christ: Practicing Christian Spirituality by Julia Gatta

Revelations of Divine Love by Julian of Norwich

Everything Belongs by Richard Rohr

Recently read (especially recommend the bolded):

How the Bible Actually Works by Peter Enns

Inspired: Slaying Giants, Walking on Water, and Loving the Bible Again by Rachel Held Evans

Contemplative Prayer by Thomas Merton

The Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis (translated by William C. Creasy)

Love Wins by Rob Bell

Please feel free to message me anytime, I'd love to chat! Peace be with you. <3

[weepylucifer]

may i respectfully ask why we are beefing with tolkien. genuinely curious

short answer: racist

long answer: you might say, but mayhem (<- me), tolkien lived a hundred years ago in the british fucking empire, of course he was a racist, most english (i'll do it like him and not say "british") authors from that time were. to which i'd say, yes, but what really gets my goat about him specifically is that his vast fandom and almost everyone doing academia about him REFUSES to acknowledge the absolute rancid trad/cath takes coming out of that man on the regular. you'll notice i'm not on a crusade of hateration against, say, bram stoker, and that's because bram's readers know and accept that he fucked up sometimes. but no, we can't sully the literary idol that is tolkien by admitting that his opinions weren't always 100% progressive, correct and all-loving by today's standards.

and trust me, i know what i'm talking about. i have read the whole book of his letters front to back and can, at any moment, pull up evidence of tolkien:

vocally supporting fascist dictator francisco franco

frothing at the mouth about how evil divorce is

being staunchly anti-communist and attributing multiple opinions he just didn't like to "red propaganda"

the "mongol types" thing

saying he, as a catholic, is more oppressed than any jewish person (he said this in a world in which the holocaust had already happened and was known to the public)

saying his made-up elves are superior to and more true than actual dactual welsh and irish folklore, which he considered primitive

basically no-true-scotsmanning adolf fucking hitler ("doesn't he know that anglo-saxons are the real master race?"), as if there were no other problems to be had with hitler. he called him a "ruddy little ignoramus" which is on par, in my opinion, with roald dahl calling him a "stinker" like he was a cartoon villain. john ronald, the man attempted genocide

saying that it would have been alright for the men of the west to invade rhun and harad and kill everyone there, and obliterate mordor, even if those countries had been beautiful, peaceful and egalitarian, because they worshipped the wrong god. essentially "crusades are okay (and even obligatory!)"

saying that yes, all elves and edain were most definitely meant to "look european" because that's obviously what looks the most beautiful. i'm sorry guys :(

whether you want to file this stuff away under "product of his time, understandable" or want to say that he should have known better, doesn't even matter at this point. bc no one wants to talk about it at all, ever, neither in fan spaces nor in academia, and everyone trying to talk about it gets ignored or dogpiled. the scholars are like "okay he said all that but he didn't MEAN anything by it!" and the fans are like "well i drew a brown elf. the issue is now fixed!" i am 5 months and 50 pages into an MA thesis about this and i have frankly had enough right about now. but it IS actually super funny that i've been beefing with tolkien for over 2 years now and made it a good chunk of my identity (<- seems healthy!) and this little comment today gets me 3 asks in my box 😄

[cynfuldelights]

what do you mean merlin made catholicism

Again staying awake at night, haunted by the implications of The Original Merlin helping to establish the Catholic Church. And on one hand I feel it's really easy to let this line slip by like a lot of other one-liners talking about long-term history. But this one takes the cake in terms of the sheer magnitude of implication. Like, Jim Butcher probably just thought it was a neat idea to throw in that he would never really expand upon further. BUT I DO. EVERY DAY. BECAUSE I FEEL IT'S SUCH A WASTE TO JUST BE A THROWAWAY LINE.

(Spoilers for Dresden obvs)

Like, if the Original Merlin helped establish the Catholic Church then that means they've been aligned with the White Council since practically its inception and vice versa. We're not sure when exactly this iteration of the White Council was created but regardless if it was created first or second this just cements the weird White/Christian ethnocentrism that exists in the White Council (a title that gets more accurate the more you think about it).

Like here's an obvious question: Were there wizards in The Crusades?

Probably, right? Like, sure, The White Council maybe has actually clung to their doctrine of non-involvement in human politics for thousands of years. But, like, that's kind of rich when OG Merlin was out there helping to create the Catholic Church, an organization that would be used to justify the monarchies of soooo many countries. You're telling me they remained apolitical, a THOUAND years ago when our conceptions of what counted as "political" are completely different? To say nothing of, wow I wonder if the Scottish magic practitioners were cool with the Anglo Christian wizards setting up shop in their ancient magical grounds. Do you think Britain/The Britons stole that too? Or are we to believe they just "handed it over willingly"? Or are we to believe that the Scottish mages got along with their invaders because of "apolitics"?

Another obvious question: Hey why aren't there any other wizard councils?

In some kind of United Nations-y situation, it feels like The White Council is supposed to be a conglomeration of cultures and practices across the world with a unifying board of diverse members who make major decisions. And that's really cool! I really appreciate the idea that there can be a global community for people who don't fit in to connect and learn from one another.

But uhhh. Why does it feel so hegemonic and imperialist?

Like, the Senior Council is diverse, that's true. Some of the members are POC, between Rashid, Listens-With-Winds, Martha Liberty, and Ancient Mai. But as you go through the list you kind of again wonder how any of these different people from different practices and backgrounds were able to cope with Western Euro Imperialism. Like, the most obvious example is Listens-With-Winds, a character who in his lifetime, witnessed genocide after genocide of not only his people but of all of the tribes across the United States. Rashid in his lifetime, likely watched the US turn the Middle East into a oil profit machine backed by US militarism and CIA support. Martha Liberty in her lifetime, watched Black people fight and claw for their basic human rights in a country that was built off the backs of their exploited labor. Ancient Mai, in her likely very long lifetime if the name is any indication, likely watched the exploitation of China and Asia by the Dutch, France, and the other European powers.

Again, are we to expect the White Council is WHOLLY APOLITICAL IN EVERY ONE OF THESE CONFLICTS?

And if they are, is that really being apolitical if it ends up working out in their favor anyways? Again, look at Edinburgh. Look at all the stuff Britain stole.

---

Ultimately I think this is a lesson in setting consideration for urban fantasy writers. Lindsay Ellis' video on Bright talks about this excellently, but to poorly paraphrase, you can't just import the real world without importing all of the baggage and strife that exists within it. You can't flippantly say, "Merlin helped found Catholicism." Without pedants like me going, "Uh. What the fuck do you mean?"

But also totally do that so I can harp on it endlessly this is the shit I love for.

I've got more like this brewing in my head I might put up, im also interested in what other implications people can think of

[satanicallypanicky]

intro post, like if read

The Basics:

this is a side blog of @theonewhocounts

I'm 33 years old, white, transmasc genderqueer (they/he pronouns), and autistic.

this blog is for my spirituality. theistic Satanism, Anglo-Saxon heathenry, and eclectic paganism mostly, but I'm going to reblog all sorts of religious stuff that strikes my fancy or educates me about other faiths.

I am an anarcho-syndicalist and hold no frith with fascists. Radical inclusion or bust.

I do divination with tarot and oracle cards, dice, runes, and obsidian mirrors. Open for requests.

if you're interested in joining a small diverse discord server for theistic satanists of all sorts, hit me up for the invite link.

i tag answered asks with #ask

DNI, I guess?

Nazis, TERFs, antisemites, folkists, and any other such motherfuckers can fuck directly off into the sun.

Proselytizers of any stripe, including Christians who would like to convince me to "return to the Lord" or whathaveyou. No thanks.

I block porn blogs and fetish Satanists. Not because I don't like porn (I assure you, that's not the case) but because I don't want my devil-worshipping to be sexualized. Follow me from your non-porn accounts or don't follow me.

I block Lilith worshippers. I respect Judaism and Jewish culture as closed. Lilith is Not For Us. For full reasoning, see this ask.

The Somewhat Less Basics:

I'm white. My ancestry is predominately from Germanic and "British Isles", but I was raised entirely "privileged American WASP". Despite being exiled from that family and experiencing poverty and homeless as a teen and adult, my background shapes my worldview.

Given my settler-colonialist heritage, I make a conscious attempt to stay out of closed practices and appropriately honor the land upon which I live.

I was raised Anglican/Episcopalian, Lutheran, and Catholic (it's complicated).

I am an eclectic pagan and polytheist. I got started in paganism through genealogical research and an ancestral connection to Englisc/Anglo-Saxon heathenry (folkists GTFO) so most of my worship is conducted through that framework of practice.

I think most/all gods are real and powerful, but I am somewhat choosy about the ones I choose to honor and worship for myself. I suppose that makes me henotheist.

I am a theistic Satanist- I worship Satan as a god of rebellion and opposition, rejection of authoritarianism, justice, and forbidden knowledge (amongst other things). I worship several other gods and/or demons as aspects or very close counterparts of Satan. Further information can be found in this ask.

I venerate my ancestors and honor the spirits and wights of the land and the home.

I have no ill will towards Christians as individuals. Satan is the Adversary of the Christian god, however, and so there are things upon which Christians and myself will fundamentally disagree. And that's okay.

I hold some Buddhist practices & philosophy very close to my heart.

The Gods I Honor

Satanic “Pantheon”

Satan

Asmodeus

Azazel

Belial

Leviathan

Lucifer

Fyrnsidu (Englisc/Anglo-Saxon Heathen) Pantheon

Wōden

Frīg/Fréo

Ing

Thunor

Tīw

Sunne

Mōna

Herthe

Wada

Wuldor

Sceadu

I am more than happy to answer questions about my spirituality and what sorts of weird religious shit I get up to. Hit me up.

“Around us, life bursts with miracles--a glass of water, a ray of sunshine, a leaf, a caterpillar, a flower, laughter, raindrops. If you live in awareness, it is easy to see miracles everywhere. Each human being is a multiplicity of miracles. Eyes that see thousands of colors, shapes, and forms; ears that hear a bee flying or a thunderclap; a brain that ponders a speck of dust as easily as the entire cosmos; a heart that beats in rhythm with the heartbeat of all beings. When we are tired and feel discouraged by life's daily struggles, we may not notice these miracles, but they are always there.” -Thích Nhất Hạnh

[dionysus-complex]

faithblogging below the cut

one of my 2024 resolutions is to start incorporating faith into my daily and weekly life which also means finding and settling on a congregation and idk I'm struggling with that process. I've settled on the Episcopal Church as being the right place for me theologically and in terms of overall vibes (I'm looking for a more high church congregation and am theologically drawn toward aspects of Catholicism, but the Roman Catholic Church's positions on abortion and LGBTQ rights are dealbreakers for me and as the child of two ex-Mormons I'm very hesitant about getting involved with anything that high-demand and hierarchical. plus I attended an Episcopal Church-affiliated school for 9 years so the rituals are familiar.)

but the thing is that in my massive West Coast metropolis there's a number of congregations near me, of which the following four seem like options:

a fairly large congregation across the street from my university; my spouse and I attended a service here on Easter last year and enjoyed it but it's also in a very wealthy neighborhood and is closely linked with my university for better and for worse

a larger congregation in the downtown area of a nearby independent city; this one seems like it might be a bit more diverse but it's a bit further from where we live

the closest to me and most convenient, located in an upper-middle class neighborhood of mostly single-family homes. seems like it might lean older

a smaller congregation that self-identifies as Anglo-Catholic, located in a diverse neighborhood of mostly apartments and renters that is also fairly close to where we live. parking is more difficult though and it's a bit too far to walk; could maybe take the train there?

while the last one is intriguing, I'm very introverted and I think that I'd like a larger congregation at least at first where I can blend in a bit more and take things at my own pace. but it feels like there's so many issues to consider - I'm married and turning 30 this month so I feel much older than the college-age demographic, but at the same time some of the other congregations seem like they might lean toward older adults, and I also would like a congregation that embraces liberation theology and ideally one that is not overwhelmingly wealthy or white which means maybe #2 or #4 would be good options

anyways idk man this stuff is difficult and I think I just need to get out of my head about it and pick one and try it out

[aeide-thea]

this tolkien meta points out some parallels i'd never particularly considered before, but the main thing it made me realize, which is tangential (and also negative) so i'm sticking it in its own post, is—why is tolkien so obsessed with niblings?

thorin has nephews. bilbo has a nephew. théoden has niblings. and with both thorin and théoden we know they're the children of a sister who gets no screentime. (denethor's sons via a long-dead wife get an honorable mention in this category also.) and part of me thinks: isn't this basically, conscious or not, a strategy that lets tolkien write about dynasties while effectively eliding the sex and marriages—and women!—that produce them?

which is easy to shrug off with the argument that those things aren't the stuff of Adventure, but rather of the society the adventurers leave behind them; but at the same time, it's all of a piece with the deeply sexist, deeply catholic ('sex must occur only within the confines of marriage, which becomes a euphemistic container for it') sensibilities that permeate tolkien's work more generally. like—look at homer. look at vergil. the domestic and familial can absolutely appear in epic. women can appear in epic.*

and of course you can say, well, tolkien's work is really more in dialogue with anglo-saxon and germanic traditions, and i'd have to admit i haven't read those stories since i was a preteen (watch me now get really into the nibelungenlied/völsunga saga/eddas…); but iirc even those featured fewer women who were always-already-dead!

⸻ * obviously éowyn does in fact get significant screentime in lotr! and even in a way where she's involved in Actual Affairs and not, like goldberry and galadriel, just a pretty symbol of the adventurers' temporary reentry into a settled sphere. but you notice that she both has to take on a male role in order to take part—she can't just fight, she has to become 'dernhelm' to do it—and that she's restored tidily to proper wedded femininity by the end of the story (hoo boy can we talk abt faramir literally wrapping her in his dead mother's mantle). anyway. loved éowyn growing up and also very vehemently think people (often women!) who claim her narrative isn't in fact sexist because it's about tolkien ~valuing healing~ are closing their eyes to how that narrative functions when it's applied to a woman specifically.

[historia-vitae-magistras]

The «am I Catholic or protesant, god I really don't know» from England. Thoughts on the history of his religious beliefs?

OOOOH, now there's whole different pair of skates. So the UK, but especially England, has had one of Europe's most layered religious histories.

There would have been at least:

Pre-Celtic and prehistoric religions, including whatever produced Stonehenge.

Celtic

Roman

at least 3 other pantheons they've found evidence of in Roman Britain

The Anglo-Saxon

Christianity

Norse

Christianity, specifically Catholicism, again

The reformation and its ten billion offshoots

Modern religious diversity, including the new agey stuff.

So, we're looking at a very complex and very long history, and speaking from a character-building perspective and looking at the patterns of what happens when a society adopts a new religion, I go with the following. 'Pagan' or polytheistic societies often did not have a problem taking the existence of the Christian god. It was getting pagans to drop their old gods or even acknowledge the Christian god as their primary deity that was the problem.

So with that in mind, with Arthur being 'born' to a mother who was not a Christian and who saw her life end when the book on Celtic paganism shut, I see him just absorbing layer after layer of religion. Just incorporating everything into his worldview, one layer on top of another, with the theme of cycles in mind. The gods before Christianity were closely linked with nature; in Celtic times, offerings were often made to bodies of water. Every living thing had a god of some sort inside it. Many folklorists and anthropologists posit that the fae as we know them are the old pagan gods, especially nature gods, that saw themselves demoted as Christianity washed through. Religion was about stability and about maintaining power and social perception. Very little of the gods of his childhood remain, but the worldview of the societies before Christianity might still be there, rattling around in his head. As the modern era sees a massive resurgence in respect and concern for nature and its importance, that theme of cycles kicks in hard regarding both the ability to accept new religions and the respect for the natural world cycles back to his youth.

[thistle-and-thorn]

I just watched Katharine Hepburn's 1936 "Mary of Scotland" and I was a bit surprised at how pro Mary it was? I barely know the basics of the Tudors and Stewarts, much less any particular knowledge about the historical figure of Mary herself. What do you think of Mary Queen of Scots? What's your opinion on Darnley and Bothwell? What about Moray?

Buckle your seat belt. Of course I have unreasonably strong opinions of this. And I haven’t seen the Katharine Hepburn movie though it’s all my favorite things and people (1930s historical dramas, KH, Tudors) in one place so I should.

I think a lot of popular culture is very sympathetic with Mary…There’s the play Mary Stuart which I Love very much but is very pro-Catholic in its approach (in response to the playwright’s problems with German Lutheranism rather than Anglo Protestantism). There’s the tv show Reign (?) and the recent movie with Margot Robbie and Saoirse Ronan which felt very pro-Mary as well. And I sort of get it…like she was executed, leaving behind a young son, and she had many spouses and a cinematic life. The contrasts between her and Elizabeth are appealing—a woman married three times disastrously compared to a woman who never married, Mary being younger and beautiful and fertile, the irony of James I becoming king of England later, etc Some of the way that Elizabeth is portrayed in these adaptions reek of the ca 2011 Taylor Swift “there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t support other women” brand of feminism. Which is…not how monarchy works lol.

My personal opinion of Mary is that you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes. The more interesting parallel of Elizabeth and Mary to me is that they were both imprisoned at times when their religious affiliation and political position was dynamite. Elizabeth was imprisoned under her sister (also called) Mary, who was instituting an aggressive campaign of Protestant persecution, and Mary of Scots, under Elizabeth during a time of a lot of Catholic terrorism. Both were implicated in plotting to varying degrees of truthfulness and both were faced with a Queen who viewed them as existential threat because of their youth (and ability to have heirs), their sympathizers (including internationally, in Mary of Scots’ case), their claims to the throne. The difference is…Mary of Scots actually plotted to assassinate Elizabeth. The Babington letters and code are likely to be real. So. Like. There are consequences to that. I don’t know what to say. Elizabeth was extremely reluctant and cautious in handling Mary in the wake of her reign falling apart until she couldn’t be anymore. Elizabeth’s ruling style was very conservative…she didn’t make decisions quickly or lightly….which made her really, really effective but also could turn into indecisiveness and you see the benefits and detriments of that approach all over her handling of Mary. HOWEVER: You plot to kill someone, they’re probably going to kill you right back. So I’m not overly sympathetic with Mary in her political struggles tbh.

Her personal struggles on the other hand are different. Darnley was an asshole and killed her friend in front of her. This is wild. As to whether or not she had a hand in his death…like would we blame her necessarily. It is a 50/50 guess as to whether she was forced into marriage and sexual relations with Bothwell or not. Maybe she wasn’t but theres a solid chance that she was. These are horrible things and she was surrounded by horrible men who destabilized her position. That’s terrible and I’m sorry for it. I feel a lot of pathos for her personal life. I don’t have a strong opinion of Moray, except that I think he was smart about some things and stupid about others. He was a Protestant with a Protestant agenda and opposed Mary’s marriage to Darnley but knew enough to remove himself during Darnley’s murder. I don’t think he would have brought peace to Scotland lol. He had a habit of just…burning stuff to the ground lol. Which is a great authoritarian tactic and not maybe great for reconciliation.

Tracy Borman wrote about the gender of Mary and Elizabeth in a way which is sort of fascinating. Elizabeth played into her sexuality and femininity in certain ways—her dramatic dress, her appearance, and her flirtations with marriage and symbol as the object of courtly love. But she existed in a politically androgynous state—she was often called “the female prince,” drew strong parallels between her and her father, referred to herself as a King. She dominated the men around her in interpersonal interactions. She did not marry (even men she probably loved like Robert Dudley) or have children. Mary’s performance of gender was much more traditional and a lot of her biggest political disasters, like her marriages, are described as being the result of her passions and being “weaker” than the male power players around her. Elizabeth’s refusal to have heirs prevented immediate instability while also causing a lot of uncertainty. Mary’s son provided a future in a way, but also was the result of terrible persona situations that contributed to her downfall. No woman can win lol. I think we see this gender contrast, in some ways, in how they’re treated in fiction.

anyway, thank you for indulging!

[schizochroal]

I think the whole "some Americans being raised thinking catholicism is a different religion from Christianity" because my perception as a child was essentially the opposite. Until I started reading a lot more about religions in my early teens my perception of Christianity was essentially formed by the people around me. My only first hand exposure to Christianity was being taken to the Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian church my mom went to, but as my dad didn't have the same religious beliefs and they both believed in like the freedom to choose ur religious beliefs I stopped going with her after I was like 6-7 and able to communicate my desire not to. Most of the people I grew up around were either part of churches similar to my mom's, catholic, Orthodox christian, Jewish , or nonreligious or at least didn't bring it up.

My understanding of Christianity as a child was basically you had catholicism, orthodoxy which was kind of like catholicism but a little different and with better bread, catholicism-lite like the church my mom went to, and then like some offshoots like Lutheranism which my understanding of was basically "it's like catholicism-lite but more German" and things like methodism I understood as "Christianity for old people" because the only people I knew that were Methodist were people that were very old or some relatives that died before I was born.

The evangelical churches as I understood them (and probably actually a lot of more typical protestant stuff?) were like weird creepy offshoots that wore all white and listened to the really bad radio stations, and gave me books about like dragons that loved Jesus or something that I promptly stuck in a corner and never read.

When I first heard someone say that Catholicism wasn't Christianity, I was initially baffled and my second assumption was that they were part of the KKK, because I knew that they were really anti Catholic .

[aprillikesthings]

This shit makes me so glad I'm Episcopalian. I'm not saying there's NO Episcopal churches that are in, like, store-fronts. But in general we acknowledge that human beings are emotionally moved by beauty and that it's okay for churches to be pretty and have stained glass and whatnot. Aesthetics are allowed to matter.

And that's not even getting into the thing in the 1800's where Anglican priests started intentionally doing fancier shit like incense and bells (aka "smells and bells" lol) and fancier church buildings and services in general. And what surprises a lot of people (it surprised me!) was that the priests who did that stuff often had churches in the slums and other impoverished areas. The general idea was "everyone is worthy of beautiful things."

(something something tract 90, using our senses to worship with our bodies as well as our minds, something something Oxford movement, yes I know this was all CoE but the Episcopal church is part of the Anglican communion and a bunch of the ideas filtered over here eventually; there are Episcopalians that identify as Anglo-Catholic and/or high church, the terms have overlap but don't mean the same thing; and there's a tradition starting in the 1800's of Anglo-Catholic socialism, anyway don't mind me just nerding out)

maybe it's because i was raised catholic but churches shouldn't look like furniture stores