Fox reports

Here’s the translation : “The fact Aphrodite is related, more than any other divinity, to the generative power and the vital force doesn’t keep her away from the themes of death, divine powers preposed to the destruction of life or to the mortal destiny of men : the genenis and phtora are part of a same process. Nothing, therefore, prevents that goddess from being mentionned in a funerary context : in Delphi, according to Plutarque, Aphrodite wore the epiclesis  Epitumbia (”upon the grave”)and her cult image received the libations that were destined to the dead. Was the aim to reinvigorate the souls of the dead,  the length of a ritual, with the aid of Aphrodite’s power when it comes to regenerate life, in order to communicate with them? Maybe. But it can’t be excluded that, in that precise context, Aphrodite was invoked to avoid the wrath of the deceased, or that, by those honors, she was made propicious; for she was a powerful goddess similar, in what regards her darker side, to the Erinyes. Clement of Alexandria depicts her in a yet more negative way when he attributes to the Argian Aphrodite the troubling epiclesis  of “Tumboruchos”, “she that digs the grave”. It is hard to come to the conclusion that this would indicate any funerary prerogatives of the goddess. Indeed, that sinister name could as well allude to the withering of and destruction of vital forces often linked to the eros and to the aphrodisia.” 

Friendly reminder that Maria Gorreti isn't a "saint for purity" in that she wasn't raped, but in that she had GENUINE LOVE for her MURDERER and THE MAN WHO TRIED TO ASSAULT HER so much so that she prayed for his conversion ON HER DEATHBED and THAT is the sense in which she's "pure of heart" NOT her virginity or lackthereof.

ah, alrighty.  I do agree with all of this, yes.  But the added context certainly helps to clear up my initial confusion.  Thank you for taking the time to add onto your original point.

No worries! Just had a spur-of-the-moment feeling to post the original thought this morning and I'm glad to flush it out more.

“ Pascasio (The Roman judge) therefore asked : « Oh, so you believe you posess the Holy Spirit?». And Lucy answered : « The Apostle said : « The chastes are temples of God and the Holy Spirity dwells in them.» Pascasio, to discredit her, commanded that she should be handed over to a brothel ; Lucy declared that she would not have consented to the pleasure of the flesh and that her body could’ve suffered all type of violations against her will, she still would’ve remained chaste, pure and stainless in her heart and spirit; and the glory of her chastety would be twice as glorious in Heaven.” (Passio Sanctae Luciae) This is comes from the IV th or V th century. The rape of Christian girls is not only a literary motive. The Romans hated what represented Christian virginity. During the persecutions, and later during other troubled events, they were particularly targeted and threatened with rape. So anyway though physical virginity is an issue, rape has never been considered a loss of purity, chastity, or anything else; on the contrary, it appears among the elements of the martyre that, though horrible in itself, become a means of glorification (cf iconography of the martyrs with instrument of their tortures)

Actually, the exact quote is “Va-t’en, Satan”, which is less odd to hear in French, and less ambiguous (“Va, Satan” could mean he is sending him, like on a mission. “Va-t’en” is much more lie “shoo”.) At any rate a beautiful quote, which strips the one really behind this murder from his disguise, beyond appearances. Already in the year 204, when Perpetua was martyred, she received an allegorical vision of her martyr to come, and she was wrestling with the devil, despite being officially condemned for not sacrificing in honor of a caesar and killed by a bull and a Roman soldier.  The picture is still quite beautiful, with a classical yet clear composition. Maybe it will go down in the history of representation of the martyr. As a scholar in Ancient martyrdom, I must say it is quite something to live contemporary exemples of martyrdom. 

Like, a demon can’t have ordinary compassion that would lead it to take pity, but could you have an “ascended demon” as a total counter-revolt equivalent to the Fall of Satan?

Actually, that kinda sounds like the position of the Westboro Baptist Satanists.

(Okay, I know we are Catholics, so I’m just mentioning this for intellectual stimulation) but, I believe there is a position among some of the Eastern Orthodox fathers that the demons will repent and be saved at the end of time. It goes along with the universal salvation position, which you see more in the East than in the West.

It’s called apocatastasis. It is linked to the rejunuvation of all things going to the point of cancelling damnation of men and demons at the end of time. It was a belief of the disciples of Origen, apparently, though it is not sure whether he shared those or not. It is nevertheless, eastern or not, a heresy. It negates the choice God gave to all to choose Him or not; demons are out of time, and have technically been in God’s eternal presence as angels from their creation to their fall : they cannot repent because they know all they can about Him and still reject Him. Same happens for men, though this choice is made during life. If it had been a mere matter of time to be purified, I don’t think God would’ve sent his Son to get crucified.

well one of them is the viceroy of alderaan and the other one is living as a hermit in space nevada, sorry that obi wan isn’t keeping up his moisturizing regimen on Planet Sand Hell while bail organa drinks kale smoothies in the shade

And let’s not forget that Tatooine has two suns and is incredibly hostile to the aging process. Look at Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru.

Too soon

DAMN

Feeling the need to react to the posts I’ve seen about the saints Sergius and Bacchus. I haven’t studied them in particular so I should probably read the scholarly publications about them. But, as a scholar in Early Christianity and Late Antiquity, I can tell the interpretations that are made of the bond between Sergius and Bacchus is far over the edge of anachronism, far away from any form of doctrinal coherence, including from practices of the Oriental churches which were not necessarily exactly the same as in the West. First, you have to realize the concept of friendship between men in Antiquity and Early Christianity is connected to high ideals that (even if you consider Plato’s later works) are completely disconnected to sexuality. It is completely contradictory to consider that Church Fathers would encourage to live a continent life, even between a legitimally wed wife and husband, and next to that encourage sex between men. Same as mystical discourses between God and Men have nothing to do with actual intercourse, most of the discourses on love between men in Early Christianity had nothing to do with physical intercourse. It was simply considered the highest form of friendship that ever could be, because there is no bodily interests, only intellectual and spiritual ones (nonewithstanding a conception of the woman that is considered misogyny nowadays).  Then, you have to realize a hagiographical text is nothing innocent. Not an objective account of facts, etc. When it is based on authentic traditions on saints, the main aim of the writing is to educate the faithful and elevate them to the examples described. There is no way, for the text to have been transmitted, it could’ve conveyed anything unorthodox (as in : contrary to the official doctrine). If the union had really had a sexual dimension, or was perceived to be ambiguous on that matter, you can be sure the text would not have survived. I looked at the Latin version of Sergius’ and Bacchus’s legend. One passage uses rhetorical means to subvert their humiliation (being stripped and clothed with woman dresses) into the thematic of the union of the soul, considered to be feminine, to God, and this union is consecrated in death. The whole marriage metaphor cannot be read otherwise. (In an other text I worked on, a metaphor of marriage is also used between a girl and a boy, but they are not married.) I have read an article mentioning an old icon representing Sergius and Bacchus in wedding attires in front of Christ : check other martyrial representations and traditions. It’s a common-place. It’s the bridal metaphor of the Christian soul, especially solemn in martyr. The sole difference in the case of S&B is that this common martyr is connected to Antique ideals of manly friendships. Seriously, this reappropriation is at the same time besides the point of sainthood models, contrary to any Early Christian cultural and theological fact and to the transmission of religious texts historical process. So I haven’t read those books yet but it sure does look like an other historiographical rape of reality. Sainthood discourses, at any rate, have never been concerned with the sexual orientation of the people they talk about, but only about their actions and their virtues. Much more to say, but conclusion is this : don’t project contemporanean individualistic categories on Ancient and especially dogmatic Christian Faith elements. They’re just not compatible as such. Even it Sergius and Bacchus ever had a same-sex attraction (and not just an elevated form of manly friendship, which, again, is not the same as contemporary bromances) and the pastoral discourse did hint at it, you’d need to understand their love was elevated into a non-physical, spiritual form, and that’s what is celebrated. Not I don’t know which nonsense about anachronical and imaginary unions that is also far away from what marriage meant in antiquity anyway. I also have to add Sergius and Bacchus were not the only saints taken off the calendar, but these removals are linked to completely different stakes.

I laughed so hard just watching that gif

…/…

@hazyblizzard Regards to hell <3 

Susan turning bad in the last book used to make me feel so sad

@hazyblizzard <3 

Excellens responsum!

Those who take grammar and the construction of the language as their main point of focus are actually -unsurprisingly- grammarians (a subcategory of linguist). Philologist would rather be the ones who are concerned about the preservation, transmission, correction of ancient texts, though of course they ought to be very keen on the langage particularites of the texts they deal with. In general, never think that what interests you in a subject is weird because most people around you take interest in something else in that same subject! Studying anything seriously can be done under so many angles, and every one of these angles is precious. (P.S. : I strongly dislike grammar too, in any language ;) )

Pulcherrime!

Fabulous Odysseus is fabulous