Add my personal Telegram account as a contact and get access to my daily stories, like this one:

https://t.me/SelfForging_Man/s/9

My Telegram account: @SelfForging_Man

"Why is every supporter of the republic, regardless of whether he is a liberal or a conservative, essentially revolutionary, liberal and anti-traditional?

The simple spiritual symbology of republicanism is often based on three foundations; the first idea of revolution, the second idea of liberalism and the third of anti-tradition. Every republic created on the foundations of a destroyed historical state will strive to carry those three foundations in its symbology and essence. Every modern republican is a revolutionary, because in contrast to the historical state, the republic is revolutionary. Every republican will be a liberal, even if he has somewhat conservative principles. Because the idea of a republic based on the 18th and 19th century (from where all today's republics come from) is liberal, be it authoritarian, dictatorial, democratic or extremely politistic. Every republican is anti-traditional, tradition simply rests on historical and hierarchical foundations, the republic arises as a revolution against those natural foundations. Therefore, a republican will always be anti-traditional, even if he shows certain traditional tendencies. Its origin is always in appealing to the masses, whether through democracy or dictatorship, therefore it will always appeal to the people, which is the greatest source of legitimacy for a republican. A Republican, even when he is a Catholic, will put the legitimacy of the people above God, above crown-state, traditional-customary or any other legitimacy. Because respect for a hierarchy that does not arise exclusively from or in the name of the people is for the republican the end of the concept of a positive state. Therefore, it is not surprising that the greatest crimes against peoples and classes were not committed in the name of God, nor in the name of the King, but in the name of the People."

- Count Anthony Breshich Nob. Mikulich of Poglizza

#politics #monarchism

I find myself frequently drawn into theological debates, despite my reluctance. The allure is strong, yet the futility of trying to convey complex theological concepts, proper biblical hermeneutics, exegesis, and the intricacies of ancient languages and Church history, to someone over text messages is stark. These subjects require a deep, lifelong commitment to learning, something that cannot be distilled into brief exchanges.

The foundational teachings of faith typically require a structured educational process. A proper catechism often involves a year of dedicated study, including weekly lectures and regular church attendance, far beyond what can be imparted through casual conversation. And this is just the beginning. Advanced theological education, like that found in seminaries, demands years of intense study, followed by a lifelong commitment to learning.

My own journey to understanding has spanned my entire life, supported by the blessings of curiosity, struggles, and other God's gifts. This depth of knowledge, acquired over decades, cannot be transmitted via text messages; it's a lived experience that can be truly shared only within the intimate circles of family and close community.

Moreover, I am not a clergyman or a professional scholar tasked with educating others as part of my vocation. The time and energy required to engage in online theological correction are resources I don't possess in abundance. Properly addressing the myriad of questions and misconceptions would demand exhaustive research and consultation, a commitment I cannot afford.

Engaging with theologically educated heterodox individuals is markedly different and less taxing than the interactions with undereducated heterodox individuals, yet even these interactions usually prove fruitless, underscored by entrenched beliefs that are resistant to change. I've come to realize that true transformation in understanding often stems from personal experience and active participation in the life of the Church, rather than from debate or discussion.

This has led me to encourage inquiry and exploration within canonical local Church communities, where questions can be addressed by those both qualified and committed to teaching. Understanding and growth in faith are gradual processes, nurtured over time through engagement and reflection.

Therefore, it seems prudent to end and avoid these fruitless discussions and to recognize our limitations in influencing each other's beliefs through debate. I admit to my own shortcomings in this regard, acknowledging that I've been drawn into such exchanges more often than I'd like. Today, I couldn't resist not responding to an awfully racist misinterpretation of the Scriptures and the nonsensical arguments against the Church that I encountered. This resulted in a time-wasting, several hours long, discussion with American non-denominational Protestant fundamentalists. While it's a weakness I'm working to overcome, I also recognize the importance of choosing our battles wisely, focusing on productive dialogue rather than contentious debate.

In light of this, I propose a different approach to our interactions on these topics: one of mutual respect and understanding, where we can share our perspectives without the need to correct or convince. This stance is not only a reminder to myself but a commitment to foster a more harmonious and understanding dialogue with others, regardless of our theological differences.

#spirituality

"The Patristic Heritage & Modernity" by Metropolitan Hilarion of Budapest

http://orthodoxeurope.org/print/11/1/2.aspx

#spirituality