Coming Soon



  1. Angelico Nguyen, Esq., OP says

    Heads up!

  2. Angelico Nguyen, Esq., OP says

    See also Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart’s lecture ‘Death, Sacrifice, and Resurrection’, which he gave at Asbury Theological Seminary in 2011:

    Hart makes the point (whose accuracy I lack the competence in anthropology and theology to judge, but which strikes me as plausible and, in any event, highly interesting) that —

    a) people in primitive cultures tend (like children) to consider life in this world as naturally everlasting, and death as a violation of that natural order;

    b) early civilizations have only a vague, shadowy, and rather a negative notion of perdurance beyond the grave (see, e.g., most of Classical mythology and Hebrew scripture);

    c) one of the tasks philosophy and heathen religions set for themselves was and is to (try to) reconcile people to the naturalness, propriety, and rightness of inevitable death; and that

    d) Christian revelation makes death problematic again, upsetting the arguments and consolations of philosophies and religions, by (in a way) confirming the primitive intuition that the true natural order is life eternal.

    In other words, accepting the Good News means accepting that death — stingless now, swallowed up in victory — nevertheless really is a wrenching, obscene, abominable horror.

  3. Angelico Nguyen, Esq., OP says

    Are we the baddies?

  4. Hi Korrektiv! Would love to get your take on this:

    I don’t even know what to think, say, do. I can’t even…I don’t even…I…

    • Angelico Nguyen, Esq., OP says

      ‘You’re looking so well, darling, you really are. I don’t know what sort of cream they put on you down at the morgue, but… I want some.’

    • lickona says

      Seems a pretty natural extension of this, n’est-ce pas?

      Though the “Bitch” brooch is in rather poor taste.

      • Angelico Nguyen, Esq., OP says

        Did Pope Stephen VI (VII)* perhaps require Pope Formosus to wear such a brooch during the Cadaver Synod?


        If so, then mightn’t the late Ms Easterling (or whoever actually decided to tag her remains with the saucy bauble in question) deserve credit for making an historical allusion — and a relatively sly one, at that?

        What I mean to say is: Which is better? Lobbing accusations of poor taste, or fabricating charitable assumptions?

        • Angelico Nguyen, Esq., OP says

          * N.b.

          On the death of Zachary, a certain priest Stephen was unanimously elected to succeed him (about 23 March, 752); but on the third day after his election, whilst transacting some domestic affairs, he was struck with apoplexy, and expired on the next day. As he died before his consecration, earlier writers do not appear to have included him in the list of the popes; but, in accordance with the long standing practice of the Roman Church, he is now generally counted among them. This divergent practice has introduced confusion into the way of counting the Popes Stephen.

          Mann, H. (1912). Pope Stephen II. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved May 2, 2014 from New Advent:

      • CAP'N COOK says

        yo! mister white! i TOTALLY got a brooch for you!! lol

Speak Your Mind