I Don't Ask For Much...

...but why is it sooo hard to get an Orthodox date in this @#$% country?!

'Traditionalist'

George Orwell, best-known for his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, mused in his 1946 essay, "...language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any direct tinkering with words or constructions".

Those words came to mind late last night during a conversation with a Roman Catholic. Let's call him G for the sake of writing. G had used the word 'trad' several times this year (rather freely too, I might add), when referring to a plethora of church events, activities and people - from masses to priests to books. Time after time, however, I found myself raising eyebrows at the event/person/practice he gave that appellation to - and always due to stunned shock, disbelief or sheer disappointment. Needless to say, I began to suspect what he actually meant when he used that term.

Now, the common understanding of a 'trad' (i.e. traditionalist) is (almost always) a Roman Catholic who advocates a return to Tradition, namely the Tridentine mass, doctrinal orthodoxy etc. Also, a trad tends to oppose rather stubbornly against modernism and various innovations (such as communion in the hand).

I have been asked this before, but I don't think Orthodox traditionalists exist. Quite simply, how do traditionalists exist in a Church whose traditions have remained, for the most part, largely unchanged? The gulf between say, Old Calendarists (or even Old Believers for that matter) and mainstream Orthodox is not as wide and vicious as the one that exists between the Roman Catholic trads and mainstream Catholics, but I digress.

There are various degrees of Roman Catholic traditionalism, and to say that all traditionalists are one and the same would be nothing but sheer ignorance. Edward, longtime contributor to now defunct blog, The Cassock and Cotta, distinguished 3 categories of traditionalists (where 'X' indicates the New Mass, i.e. Novus Ordo, and 'Y' represents the Tridentine mass):

1) Those who believe the X is equally valid, if perhaps sometimes rather problematic. These people prefer Y over X for historical, cultural and various reasons, but do not see X as heretical.

2) Moderates. These believe X is seriously problematic and has heretical tendecies - Y is the solution to these modern heresies. These believe that while X is not invalid or graceless, they prefer to wall themseleves off, keeping Y and the true uncompromised faith, forming a sort of resistance, hoping for better times.

3) Extremists. These believe X is heretical and invalid and graceless. Those who adopt X have become heretics, outside the True Church, and that grace leaves that jurisdiction. Those who use X may only be saved if they renounce X and join Y, the only place where true believers may be found.

'Traditional' practices would refer to Catholic practice which began after the Council of Trent and largely died out since the reforms of the Second Vatican Council in the 60s.

Now that we are clear, one who would use the 'traditionalist' to describe something would refer to either one of the aforementioned categories. The terms are hardly, if ever, used to describe an event/practice or even person for that matter, if it is anything less. For example, A Novus Ordo mass celebrated in Latin is not 'traditional', and although traditionalists may attend or even form the bulk of the congregation, it does not change the fact that such masses did not exist before the Second Vatican Council. One would not use the word 'traditional' to describe it. I think the word Edward would use is 'pointless'.

G has applied the term to such masses. And to Stations of the Cross. And rosary. And confession. At which point, I'd stop and seriously question his definition - which I did last night:

Constantine: You seem to be applying it everywhere
G: ok firstly....my definition of traditional would be to follow what the catholic church has always taught till today
G: and that is how the catholic church defines Tradition

30 minutes of attempting to clarify later, the discussion (if you may call it as such) came to this:

G: strictly speaking....the catholic church is traditional
Constantine: No, no... not 'traditional', traditionalist.
Constantine: 'Traditionalist', as in an advocate of the Tridentine mass and various other Roman Catholic practices that have since fallen out of use
G: this is not an official ecclesial terminology right
Constantine: Never has been
G: anyway i am 'traditionalist' therefore but i also subsribe to the normative rite
G: as all catholics are oliged to...with the exception of sspx...(hence they are in an irregular position)

Another half hour of attempts later:

Constantine: When most of us use the word 'trad'/'traditionalist', we follow popular usage
Constantine: Else we wouldn't use it otherwise
G: when u say most...i guess u mean traddys right
G: cos many people i speak to are also non traddys
G: and they also use the 'traditional' term
G: but it wouldn't mean any of the above u named
G: but none of these people are 'traditionalists' per se
G: they are novus ordo catholics
G: who follow the tradition of the church

OK, never mind the fact that he probably didn't understand me, but this revealed why he was misusing the term: he has obviously confused 'tradtionalists' with Sacred Tradition. This is not unlike confusing Democrats with democracy...

This begs the questions: has he misunderstood my use (and very possibly, others') of the terms throughout the past year? Was he not confused himself? He reads the New Liturgical Movement; shouldn't he know?

This obviously doesn't make any sense, but G hasn't made sense for quite some time now. The conversation then moved to the recent World Youth Day in Sydney, and several negative comments (mostly centered around Stations of the Cross) from yours truly later:

G: on the positive side (of World Youth Day) about a 200 000 people went for confession
Constantine: Uh, that's a "good" thing how?
G: so well many souls were restored to grace...u wouldn't find this even in the vatican
Constantine: It's a given that a good Catholic go to confession regularly
G: it is not a given nowadays
Constantine: Please, don't lower your standards....
G: thats why the church needs to 'encourage' young people to go
G: through such means
Constantine: That's not the answer, you realise
Constantine: You might as well give out free beer with every confession

I think I'm beginning to see how he could have used the term so loosely. He has lowered his standards and expectations to the point that even something vaguely Latin would appear 'traditional'. I could very well blame the Second Vatican Council for the decline in faith, as some 'traditionalists' are wont to do, but I won't. Perhaps for G, his language truly is a reflection of his social condition - the climate of political correctness must have rendered him reluctant to offend anybody, while relativism blinds him to objective standards and so blurred the meaning of the term.

Standards are important. In morals, in faith, and also in language. Language is important. It turns a mass into something solemn and powerful - or into a farce. It can bring people to raise their minds and spirits to God - or it can get them to join their minds and spirits to each other, and forget all about God.

Let us not make the same error G has made, and stick to clear, concise meaning when we use words!

Arousing Desire

So I have been speaking with this teen-aged lass from the SSPX for some months now. Like most girls her age, she is impetuous, headstrong and eclectic.

She's got a log-sized chip on her shoulder from being in the SSPX. For rather inexplicable reasons, being in the SSPX for nearly 4 months now and receiving personal catechism didn't instill in her a feeling of obedience toward the hierarchy or empathy for their uncompromising views. Instead, it just fed her adolescent self-consciousness and sexual paranoia. The bad news is that she doesn't seem to have gotten over it yet.

The views of SSPX Bishop Richard Williamson, particularly those on women, have caused her much grief. She takes much offence at "women being fit only for the kitchen and bedroom", and has been airing her grievances at me, expressing her frustration with every opportunity at this supposedly widely-held perception of women.

I don't know the people who tell her these things, but isn't it obvious in modern society, women have never had it easier?

They enjoy freedom of choice in the job market, or can opt to stay at home and raise children (or do both). They are perfectly free to use marriage and divorce as businesses, enriching their personal fortunes by doing nothing more than providing sex. They are allowed to manipulate men with sex and tears to get whatever they want. They have been granted permission to usurp traditional male jobs yet still - with bold-faced hypocrisy - expect men to finance their social lives. They can choose to serve in the military without fear of losing their lives in combat. They expect to be able to denigrate the male gender and treat men like emotional punching bags without protest. They force men to endure "sensitivity training" to pressure them into becoming more like women.

All of this is apparently absent in the SSPX, and all she hears about the fairer sex comes from Bishop Williamson; "true universities are for ideas, ideas are not for true girls, so true universities are not for true girls". That the SSPX wishes its female adherents to return to the state of women before the 1960s should come as no surprise to some. In most affairs, ranging from liturgical practice to taste in fashion, the SSPX is generally conservative.

Whatever the case may be, one could not afford to be ignorant in the age of Google and Wikipedia - one sifted through the mess that is the Internet and found writings from our friend, Bishop Williamson. Now, as much as some women find them antiquated and bigoted, I personally found them to be quite offensive toward men.

In an October 13, 2007 column on the subject of female Doctors of the Church, the bishop contended that "any woman set up in public view is liable to arouse unclean desire in men".

One would think that Williamson has never laid eyes upon a womyn priest before. They inspire much, but I don't any of it constitutes an "unclean desire" in men.

The SSPX has long denounced the use of women in advertising, and the good bishop's words merely follow the trend. As much as I agree with the former, I find the latter to be insulting and contemptuous - with those words, Bishop Williamson has joined the SSPX to centuries of belief that men have unquenchable sexual drive and are unable to control their urges. It's only natural, of course.

Why, this puts the good bishop more in league with the local mullah than with any Catholic bishop today. Whatever the case, any woman who takes Bishop Williamson's words seriously ought to have her head examined. After all, this is someone who condemned The Sound of Music as virtually pornographic!

I cannot speak for all masculinity, but one can safely say that men are NOT aroused by the sight of ANY woman - not even those who have been deprived of female company, like those working in the military, or in engineering. "But hold on, Constantine," you may be yelling at your computer, "what about the men who rape elderly women and have intercourse with animals?" Well, do all men rape elderly women and have intercourse with animals? Certainly not. Just like not all Moslems are terrorists.

On a side note, rape is often a crime of power and control rather than purely that of sex - but that is a story for another time.

Who are these women who have "set [themselves] up in public view"? They are myriad; we have police officers, models, politicians, ballerinas, insurance agents, actresses, salesgirls, bank tellers, singers, royalty, famous-for-being-famous types, waitresses, etc. The list goes on and on.

Are we to say that all these women arouse unclean desire in men? Why, the poor men won't be able to leave home without suppressing serious testosterone urges first - but since men are incapable of doing so, how are we to solve this troubling issue?

Those who have propagated that message have given us a solution: keep women covered up and out of the workplace, a la Yemen. Better yet, why not arrest every man, as he is likely to commit a criminal offence? After all, growing on every man's body is an organ which may be an accessory to rape.

This goes to show how ridiculous the notion is. Most women would like to have the power to arouse men on sight, but unfortunately (or fortunately), that is not the case. Men do not arouse as easily as certain people would like us to believe. Why, as many have already pointed out - it is often used as a tool to keep women chaste and submissive. This is not to say, however, that women should now do the reverse and flagrantly display their uh, feminine virtues with utter abandon.

Being chaste is a good thing, but it should not be achieved on a foundation of lies told about men.

Church of Cyprus Sues Turkey

Nicosia, Apr 8 - The Church of Cyprus has decided to take legal action against Turkey at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for the destruction of Cyprus’ religious heritage in the Turkish occupied areas of the island.

Archbishop of the Church of Cyprus Chrysostomos II has said that the decision "is final" and added that the legal advisors of the Cypriot Church are ready to proceed with the case.

"We have already assigned the case to our lawyers and we are in the process of registering all properties of the Church of Cyprus all over the island with the Land Registry", he said.

Since the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus about 550 churches have been desecrated and 15,000-20,000 icons are missing, believed to be stolen or sold on the black market.

Some Orthodox Churches situated in the Turkish occupied areas of Cyprus have been converted to mosques, military camps, barns, mortuaries or silos.

- Embassy of Cyprus in Washington D.C.

It's about time the Church stood up to Moslem injustice.

Readers may remember Sandro Magister's report, 'Cyprus: Portrait of a Christianity Obliterated' from two years ago. I doubt much has changed since.

An excerpt:
...most of the mosques in Greek Cypriot territory have been restored, while [the Turkish Cypriot] government has authorized the transformation of churches into restaurants and hotels

What is this, but yet another example of the famous Moslem double-standard?

If we live in a world where the strong rule and the weak submit, why is it that whenever Muslim regions are conquered, such as in the case of Palestine, the same Islamists who would never concede one inch of Islam’s conquests resort to the United Nations and the court of public opinion, demanding justice, restitutions, rights and so forth?

As in Kosovo, the Moslem occupiers of Northern Cyprus have undertaken a similar, systematic obliteration of historic Christian culture. The world vexes over Iran, supposedly the "most active state sponsor of terrorism", when eyes should be on Turkey - genocide of its native Christian population is not known in Iran.

I am doubtful that bring this matter before the ECHR would resolve anything. The Court, based in Strasbourg, is dominated by the same politically correct Western European ilk who run the bureaucratic monster in Brussels. The West has always been slow to respond to the needs of Eastern Christians; as we have witnessed in recent months, neither do they care.

Virtually all of Western Europe has consented to the surrender of Kosovo and Metohija to Albanian crime lords. Earlier in 1999, NATO killed a few thousand Serbs then too stupid to realize their fellow Christians didn't give a @#$% about them.

Why, in the 17th century, France provoked Russia to war when Napoleon III forced Ottoman Turkey to recognise France and the Roman Catholic Church as the sole Christian authority in the Holy Land, with control over the Christian holy places and possession of the keys to the Church of the Nativity, formerly held by the Orthodox Church. Looking back further, we remember the Sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade and the establishment of the Latin Empire. We remember how the Teutonic Knights, seeing how the Orthodox Novgorodians were in need of salvation as much as the pagans, invaded the Russian territories, only to be inflicted a crushing defeat by the 21-year-old St Alexander Nevsky.

When they were Christian, the Western powers were reluctant friends at best. Now, one does not expect much help from these postmodern, secular states.

The Indian Bin

One of my pet peeves about ethnic Chinese Singaporeans (those born and bred here) is their frighteningly oversimplified categorization of all non-East Asian languages and cultures. There is this overwhelming tendency to think of any language/culture one is unfamiliar with as "Indian". It makes any discussion of music and the performing arts of various cultures extremely difficult on my end.

These languages have all been identified as "Indian" by friends/classmates:
* Arabic
* Armenian
* Chechen
* Farsi (Persian)
* French (yes, FRENCH)
* Georgian
* Greek
* Mongolian
* Romanian
* Russian
* Serbo-Croat
* Ukrainian

Just look at the list. Are any of the languages listed even remotely close to any of the myriad Indian tongues?

One can only wonder how the thought process actually plays out:
1) Hears unfamiliar music Constantine is playing
2) Music is unfamiliar, then language must be unfamiliar too
3) Unfamiliar = Indian
4) Therefore, music/language must be Indian

First of all, the Indian language does not exist! There are well over 20 official languages in India, ranging from Hindi to Malayalam to Urdu. The languages of the India are as diverse as the geography and people of the land.

It is not so much not being able to identify languages that bugs me, but the derogatory use of the "Indian" description. Anything strange and unfamiliar is automatically tossed into the "Indian bin". Nobody wants to hear strange, unfamiliar Indian music. Nobody wants to watch strange, unfamiliar Indian videos. Nobody wants anything to do with strange, unfamiliar Indian things.

We like to think ourselves as a cosmopolitan city-state - but what does it matter if the majority of the population (over 75%) think of a minority group as merely a synonym for all things bizarre and outlandish?

Are they so culturally illiterate that they can't tell Romanian (a LATIN language, closest to Italian) from Tamil (the most widely-spoken language by local Indians)? Even the well-read among us disappoint me sometimes - Kenny of the Sleepless Eye once mistook Russian and Persian for "Indian".

This habit has absolutely NOTHING to do with one's knowledge/education. It is rooted in the individual mindset. We must change this if we are truly to become a cosmopolitan state.

Madness? This is Sparta!

After answering endless questions over the weekend, it has suddenly dawned upon me that classical Greek history has suddenly become very popular among male youths (not the most willing history students in this country) due to a certain film.

Yes, I refer to the movie "300".

I read about the Battle of Thermopylae when I was 12, but hardly anyone cared for it then. Now they swarm to me like flies, asking all manner of questions.

Watched this film last week with a JieXiong. At the end of it, I overheard some bloke going, "This battle really happened?". Great Zeus help us all.

From the very beginning, where the historical preamble explaining the "background" is narrated, I begin to squirm. "We Spartans have descended from Hercules himself" a dispirited voice said. Now, although we tend to be more familiar with his Latin name, the demigod was known as Heracles in Greek. There is no way a Spartan would ever use the name, "Hercules". And since when were the Spartans collectively descended from Heracles? Only their kings were said to be. Now, this is an error I can forgive quite easily, seeing as how this is all artistic license.

I don't have too many complaints against the depiction of the Greeks here. I won't say much about their choice of costume - but does it occur to you that ancient Greek male dress in film is showing more and more skin these days? Compare the designer leather skirts the Greeks wore in "Troy" and the leather briefs in "300", for example.

Gerard Butler, who plays King Leonidas of Sparta, seems rather lost. He commands his men with an accent that knows no location on earth. Struggling to keep his thick Scottish accent at bay throughout the film, he seemed to belong to "Braveheart" more than "300".

What's up with the number of Greek allies that join up with the Spartans along the way to Thermopylae? For crying out loud - there were well over 5000 Greeks present. And while many did withdraw, 700 Thespians (citizens of Thespiae, not actors) cast their lot with the Spartans. Certainly not the tiny mob of untrained levy soldiers as shown in the film.

Also, why was the character Dilios invented for the film? What was wrong with Aristodemus? Being one of the 300 to survive the Battle of Thermopylae, returning to do battle at Plataea... really, I don't see the difference here!

My last gripe about the Greeks - what's all this talk about freedom from slavery? Sparta probably had a larger slave population per capita than the Persian Empire. Maybe they were referring about their freedom from the Persians...

Next, the Persians - pioneers in the art of facial piercing. Why on earth are their emissaries depicted as black Africans? Does Frank Miller know where the Persian Empire was located? Certainly nowhere near Africa! Just because most of us don't know how Central Asians look like, it doesn't mean that filmmakers can pick random exotic-looking actors to portray them! Well, some of us happen to know how Central Asians look like - and these actors don't even come close! Were they guided by the same logic that led filmmakers to cast Rosario Dawson as Roxana in the 2004 film "Alexander"?

Now, if you thought the emissaries wandered in from the next-door audition for Indiana Jones villains, then you'd absolutely have a heart attack if you saw Xerxes, the ruler of the Persian Empire - portrayed here by Brazilian hunk Rodrigo Santoro. They've rid him of his surfer boy look, I'll give them credit for that, but they've replaced it with something so wrong.

Xerxes

Xerxes is shown here as an androgynous, hairless goliath who speaks with a James Earl Jones-type voice. When he made his appearance, I heard stifled snickering from all the teenage boys in the audience.

Xerxes

Like the emissaries, he is arrayed in all manner of body piercings. Has no one seen the reliefs at Persepolis? Has there ever been a notable Persian ruler (both past and present) without prominent facial hair (save for Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran)? I don't know what inspired the artists - some cross between RuPaul and Baron Samedi, I imagine.

I know what you're thinking, but stick with me - the story gets better. The entire Persian army consisted almost entirely of grotesquely deformed, bloodthirsty subhumans incapable of speech. What is this? Lord of the Rings? Is this what the Battle of Thermopylae has been reduced to - a greatly simplified battle between good and evil?

The Persians were every bit as human as the Spartans were! Mind you, the Persian army was one of the most efficient and powerful fighting forces in the ancient world, not some rabble of mindless orcs. The way the Persian military was portrayed, however, could easily have led one to believe that it was essentially a crowd of homicidal lunatics, including ninjas, dervishes, elephants, a charging rhino, an angry bald giant and led by witch doctors.

The Persian War Machine

Ninjas

Elephants

Angry Bald Giant

Moving on to the rest of the movie.

Tyler Bates, whose repertoire includes "Dawn of the Dead" and "The Devil's Rejects", composed the soundtrack. He described the score as having "beautiful themes on the top and large choir", but "tempered with some extreme heaviness". I'm not quite sure what that means, but his soundtrack was more wrestling match than epic battle.

Like Robert Rodriguez's version of that earlier Miller work, the movie is one of those computer jobs, in which real men do real stuff in a big blue room and then digital artists invent a world around them. Its digitally tricked-up colour scheme, while impressive at times, is hard to tolerate for nearly two hours. I understand that filmmakers wanted to remain true to the comic book - but really, someone ought to tell them that the colour scheme of a late 90s comic book *ahem*, I meant graphic novel, doesn't quite work so well on the big screen.

The action is all showy and stylized, trapped in the realm of the surreal (along with just about the entire movie). Director Zack Snyder does not a gift for kinetic action (his most famous work being "Dawn of the Dead"), and the battle choreography is stilted. Violence and gore lose their meaning 20 minutes into the film. He overdoes the slow motion until it becomes comic.

Don't get me wrong here. Though I curmudgeonly carp at blatant inaccuracies and misrepresentations, I welcome the publicity for this subject. If you really want to experience the Battle of Thermopylae, ignore the graphic novel. Go out and get a translation of Herodotus' account and read it for yourself. Better yet, learn ancient Greek and read the original.

What do you get if you start with the greatest last stand in all history, then remove the historical context and all the psychological complexity?

"300" is a movie that is too artistic and detached to be taken seriously.

Valentine's Day

Bah, humbug!

With my mind temporarily lobotomized by unhealthy levels of Russian techno, I can now safely write on the occasion of this day without trailing off halfway to jump off a bridge or something.

Ah, Valentine's Day.

What a surprise to find, when one looks at the Western liturgical calendar, that Valentine's Day is, well, the Feast of St Valentine (February 14). This is the day we remember a great saint who loved his Lord enough to die for Him. A wonderful feast it truly is, and how it has been perverted and made trivial.

I hate this holiday. I hold it in contempt for the same reason that I do Halloween. It has everything to do with commercialization and more. Like Halloween (and Christmas, to a certain extent), Valentine's Day is no more than superficial, imported Western kitsch.

Not only is it a vulgar, commercialized, pretend excuse for a holiday, Valentine's Day is actually harmful and discriminatory. Psychologically harmful and discriminatory, it does more harm than good.

Holidays can be divided into three categories - those of observance (Victory in Europe Day, International Women's Day), those of celebration (New Year's) and both (Pascha/Easter). The point of a holiday is this: to either remember/commemorate an important religious/historical event or for everyone to celebrate it happily. Now, we know that a good 100% of couples celebrating Valentine's Day all have no idea who St Valentine is. So moving on to the "celebration" aspect of today...

Anybody can celebrate Christmas/Halloween/St Patrick's Day/New Year's/Hanukkah if he/she wants to do so. Valentine's Day, however, actively excludes and humiliates those who do not meet its criteria - basically those not in a dyadic relationship (heterosexual or otherwise). So what else is Valentine's Day other than seeing a bunch of people who happen to have been lucky enough to be in romantic relationship lording it over those who haven't?

Valentine's Day isn't fun at all. Speaking from experience, I can tell you that Valentine's Day for someone who is single is unbearably excruciating. Nobody likes it when I start pontificating on a topic everyone thought I knew nothing about (just ask my classmates). And yet, to someone who is single - that is what Valentine's Day is all about: an exclusive cabal of smug people emphasizing the fact that you're still single (i.e. discrimination and harassment).

How anyone can tolerate or even like this farcical and anachronistic holiday is beyond me.