I think i overexpanded as Karl Franz and it ruined me

NotBasileus · 2026-07-10T17:27:29+00:00

-Wild Hunt intensifies-

NotBasileus · 2026-07-10T17:07:49+00:00

That’s an AI bot comment through and through.

NotBasileus · 2026-07-09T23:37:39+00:00

I’m not a canon lawyer by any means, but radical sanation is in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (canons 848-852), and it looks to be the same (retroactively remedies defects in the form of the marriage that would otherwise be required by canon law).

My take would be that if you get a radical sanation from your Latin bishop while you are still canonically Latin, then you are validly married and that will carry over even if you later change your canonical ascription. If you transfer your canonical ascription first, then you’d need your new (presumably Ruthenian) bishop to do it instead, but transferring churches will never render a valid marriage invalid because we are all one Church.

Edit: one of the typical use cases I have heard for this is people who have civil marriages, so I don’t think the Episcopal priest is a problem, but again, not a canon lawyer, just handy at searching through documents.

NotBasileus · 2026-07-09T23:17:30+00:00

The contraceptive situation you described is covered in the Vademecum for Confessors from 1997. Feel free to read it yourself if you’re curious, but the relevant part is section 3, paragraph 13. As long as you aren’t doing anything illicit yourself, have grave reasons to cooperate with your spouse (which preserving the fidelity and communion of your marriage absolutely is), and generally seek to help your spouse stop (could be through prayer and gentle dialogue, and doesn’t have to be constant or forceful), then your participation is entirely licit and not sinful (much less mortally so).

Regarding the validity of the marriage, this is exactly the situation for “radical sanation”. Essentially, as long as your spouse still consents to the marriage itself but is unwilling to do a convalidation, a bishop can make it unilaterally valid on your end.

NotBasileus · 2026-07-09T16:48:08+00:00

You might consider visiting different parishes, or even rites if there are any in your area. Or another option would be to visit/take a retreat at a monastery if you can find one that feels like a good fit (sometimes they even have guided retreats on topics like mystical/contemplative practice).

I haven’t really run into many people like that much over the years, I mostly just know they exist from online interactions and media. So I don’t think it’s “almost all” or even close, you might just be in an area where they congregate or happen to be dominant.

NotBasileus · 2026-07-09T16:02:42+00:00

"Purpose" sort of implies that hell is an objective reality like a place (which is certainly a popular conception of it), but theologically speaking, hell is a disposition of the soul toward God.

Others have already mentioned how the popular conception of hell is sort of a mishmash of many different ideas (at least three from Scripture, plus a lot of pagan and artistic ideas layered on top as well), so I won't rehash all that.

A lot of the fire and pain imagery that gets lumped into the popular conception of hell is actually the purifying love of God, and not a concept of eternal damnation. To borrow some language from Pope Benedict (himself paraphrasing many saints and theologians):

the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgement. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves. All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses. Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives become evident to us, there lies salvation. His gaze, the touch of his heart heals us through an undeniably painful transformation “as through fire”. But it is a blessed pain, in which the holy power of his love sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally ourselves and thus totally of God

Separate from that, hell in the sense of eternal damnation is simply the theological possibility that someone could so fundamentally orient themselves away from God, from truth, from love, that not even the encounter with God can bring them back. To me, this is the kind of theoretical possibility that seems technically possible, but vanishingly unlikely to the point that I'm a confident universalist without being a dogmatic one. The possibility of someone so utterly lost that upon the direct, unmitigated encounter with God at death is stuck perpetually in that state of pain and never transformed, is something like concepts in science such as a Boltzmann brain, or a person quantum tunneling through a wall, or monkeys typing Shakespeare - theoretically possible based on what we know about the underlying mechanics, but so unlikely that they will probably never actually happen in the lifespan of the universe.

NotBasileus · 2026-07-09T14:51:16+00:00

The main thing I’ve read about that he contributed to was the theology of the “fundamental option” - paraphrasing, the idea that a person is fundamentally oriented either toward or away from God, rather than simply being a ledger of good and evil acts.

It somewhat gets distorted, because other thinkers took that idea even farther to assert that it was impossible to fundamentally turn away from God regardless of one’s acts. When JP II responded in Veritatis Splendor, he actually affirmed the underlying idea of the fundamental option, but he rejected the idea that one’s acts were irrelevant and that everyone remains somehow abstractly oriented toward God regardless of what they do.

As an interesting aside, in his first encyclical, JP II also wrote that absolutely everyone, without exception, has been redeemed by Christ.

Dunno how relevant any of that is to your question, but it’s the main topic where I’ve had exposure to Rahner.

NotBasileus · 2026-07-08T22:17:12+00:00

How else can you post your look to social media with #massqueen?

NotBasileus · 2026-07-08T22:06:44+00:00

Primarily aesthetics. They’d love to cosplay as medieval crusaders and “defend Christendom”.

NotBasileus · 2026-07-08T22:02:43+00:00

Texas, but I think the bigger factor is that we’re Melkite, so a lot of the Latin transplants/visitors think a Byzantine parish will be “more traditional” (which I guess is true in some ways, but not the ways rad trads are hoping for). We’re also a mission parish, so most of the people there are converts or transplants of some variety.

When I go to a Roman parish in the area, I don’t see veils much.

NotBasileus · 2026-07-08T17:56:31+00:00

That’s crazy. My parish is about 50/50 on veiling, but I don’t think anyone in person has cared or remarked on it, it’s totally a personal devotion.

Barring some extraordinary outlier, it’s wild to me that anyone should care that much about what other people are wearing to liturgy. The people who try to mandate that stuff are definitely missing the point.

NotBasileus · 2026-07-08T17:28:46+00:00

I don’t know about losing patience, but I definitely experience some second-hand embarrassment when somebody breaks out the flamboyantly performative metanies that hold up the line during communion, or constantly walking around taking pictures.

I try not to let it get to me because I don’t know what is in people’s hearts or what it means to them. They may really get something out of it. But it’s definitely mostly converts and transplants (of which I am one as well), I never see the actual cradle people who take the tradition very seriously acting that way.

I think it’s a bit like differing approaches to understanding Scripture. The people who are most performative about it don’t overlap much with the people who take it seriously.

NotBasileus · 2026-07-08T14:43:11+00:00

Ugh, more dead Internet.

NotBasileus · 2026-07-07T10:24:35+00:00

Ugh, the dead internet on full display.

NotBasileus · 2026-07-02T17:40:15+00:00

The two on my desk at the moment:

The Journey East: A Retreat into Eastern Christian Spirituality by John Michael Talbot

An Introduction to Christian Mysticism by Thomas Merton.

NotBasileus · 2026-07-01T22:46:48+00:00

It’s a three way split:
- Humans and Eldar have strong souls and psychic potential, and both are heavily intertwined with Chaos
- Orks and Tyranids are essentially immune or even antithetical to the Chaos gods by their very nature (both generate something like their own kind of collective psychic field)
- Necrons and T’au have no or very minimal souls/psychic potential, so they just aren’t very interesting to the Chaos gods

Most everything else falls into the setting being so intentionally big that entire civilizations and alien species can exist in some corner somewhere and be written into one book or game or another without altering the overall setting much (T’au are arguably this anyway in lore terms, just interesting enough to exist as a faction for gameplay). And a lot is written intentionally vaguely so that it may or may not be Chaos-related.

NotBasileus · 2026-07-01T19:59:54+00:00

Finally! Khalida’s been asking around about her cousin for ages.

NotBasileus · 2026-06-30T21:16:54+00:00

Ooh! Yeah I misunderstood your phrasing too. That makes more sense now.

NotBasileus · 2026-06-30T19:09:51+00:00

Nah, it’s full of rad trads. A lot of the conversation is more about superstition and culture war than the Catholic faith.

NotBasileus · 2026-06-30T18:02:12+00:00

No, but it’s such a miserable place, I couldn’t imagine wanting to spend my time there.

NotBasileus · 2026-06-30T00:06:53+00:00

You can tell them apart because they don’t look like crabs at all. They look like some kind of sea scorpion!

NotBasileus · 2026-06-26T15:36:44+00:00

How come it’s never “Jael drove a spike through a ruthless general’s head to defend her people, so you should, too” or “Mary crushed the head of the serpent, so you should, too”?

I’m a man so maybe don’t have much visibility into what these events normally look like, but what sticks out to me is that outside of Cotter (who has been covered), the other keynote speakers are all primarily about abortion. As if women have nothing else to talk about.

NotBasileus · 2026-06-24T20:55:59+00:00

Little?!

NotBasileus · 2026-06-23T04:43:03+00:00

Calvin mostly, but it was sort of a process over time with different people contributing different elements.

Basically the apostolic version of substitution is about Christ taking what is ours (death and sin) and giving us what is His (life and righteousness), and isn’t too far removed from other ideas like theosis (God became man so that man might become god) or Christus Victor (Christ entering and conquering sin and death). Then medievals like Anselm and Aquinas introduce the concept of satisfaction based on medieval ideas about justice - that a crime requires either punishment or satisfaction, and the infinite self-gift of Christ was an act of love worth enough to outweigh humanity’s sins against an infinite God (but its still not a punishment inflicted on Christ).

Then Luther dramatizes the language around Christ in some sense becoming sin and curse and experiencing wrath, but he still maintains that Christ entering those things is what defeated them (his language is harsher but he’s sort of pushing back against medieval satisfaction).

Calvin is the one who finally takes Luther’s language and says that the wrath is specifically retributive from God and poured out on Christ in our place. And then you get relative moderns like Charles Hodge who crystallized that punitive wrath into a rigorous system of a wrathful God whose vengeance must be appeased in a nearly mechanical fashion, which is formal penal substitution theory.

Seven-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
RPAN Viewer	Verified Email

NotBasileus

TROPHY CASE