Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
VIROS

Ecumenical Council on Angelic Intercession, Spiritual Apparition, and Azdrazism

Recommended Posts

[!] Letters bearing the pontifical coat of arms are delivered to the priesthood, inviting them to correspond with the Holy See and each other, in preparation for an ecumenical council.

 

popecoa.png.6c0066d29de6c7b8ba8a516b26eeee1a.png

 

ECUMENICAL COUNCIL ON ANGELIC INTERCESSION, SPIRITUAL APPARITION, AND AZDRAZISM

 

Brothers,

 

Our Auditor of the Tribunal, Alfred Cardinal Jorenus, has recently authorized the veneration of the angel Xan (in Flexio, Janus) by Canonists, and the subsequent receipt of supernatural powers from him. Our initial reading of Cardinal Jorenus’ report was favorable, and we gave our imprimatur for this practice among Canonists. However, we have lately received some complaints from laity, and one particular complaint from within the priesthood: 1) this practice may stray into idolatry, and 2) the angel in question may not serve God’s purposes. The latter issue is particularly concerning, for the Et Principia Ecclesiae Dogma published in 1570 reports that angels are instruments of divine will, and lack the ability to defy God; yet the Catechism of the Canonist Church first published later that same year reports that angels possess free will. Generally, I am inclined to believe that angels are instruments of divine will, but that to serve their wicked purposes, some Daemons disguise themselves as angels: the dogma are infallible, and so it is not possible that the Et Principia was errant in its description

 

In addition, the realms of humanity have received an unusual number of visits from the dead. Haense in particular currently hosts many spectres. This is an issue for which we have no strong, defined doctrine. We are aware, for example, that saints occasionally appear as miraculous apparitions to believers--yet many of these recent spiritual appearances seem more enduring, mingling freely among the common populace of the region as if they still lived. This is worrisome because it indicates that some dead are not passing on into their next life (or lack thereof, in the case of the those bound for the Void).

 

Finally, we are aware of the practice of Azdrazism, whereby the servants of the dragon Azdromoth are transformed into draconic humanoids capable of numerous magical feats, including polymorphing into many forms, breathing fire, and supernaturally regenerating. This is concerning because it likely involves the worship of Azdromoth as an idol; tolerable for the gentile races, but intolerable for humans. It is entirely possible that these Azdrazi, using their ability to polymorph, now live covertly in our society.

 

Thus we are faced with several supernatural matters which are pending our decision. Because of the ongoing Inferi threat, it would be inadvisable for you to leave your dioceses for the duration necessary to fully discuss all of these issues in-person.  I have called this council via encyclical, whereby each of you will send letters to the Holy Palatinate, and the pontifical scriveners will in turn deliver copies of all correspondence to each of you. In order to ensure our decision is indisputable, we will, at the conclusion of the encyclical correspondence, meet in person for a final discussion and vote.

 

I invite each of you to provide all information you possess on these topics in your first letter. You may also open with arguments for the resolutions you favor. At the moment, the matters requiring our attention are: 

  • The extent to which the veneration of angels and receipt of magickal powers from them is licit;
  • The apparent conflict between the Catechism and the Dogma regarding angelic free will;
  • The nature of the spiritual apparitions across Haense;
  • Guidelines for distinguishing a genuine saintly apparition from a ghostly haunting;
  • and doctrine concerning the status of the Azdrazi in Canonism.

 

Deo Gratias,

James II

 

((Please do not respond to this thread unless you are listed below among those who were sent a letter.))

 

Spoiler

@Froschli Alfred Cardinal Jorenus, Auditor of the Tribunal

@Caranthir_ Amadeus Cardinal Albarosa, Vice-Chancellor

@GoldWolfGaming Manfried Cardinal St. Julia, Prelate of the Priesthood

@Neon123 Arthur Cardinal Helena

@Lojo613 Goren Cardinal Kovacs

@argonian Ailred Cardinal Reinmar

@Harald Johan Cardinal Aquila (Laity, no vote)

@IIJENSENII Grandmaster Leonid Amador (Laity, no vote)

@Anisiya Sister Anabel Vladimirovna, Secretariat of His Holiness (Laity, no vote)

@Draeris Msgr. Laurence August Pruvia

@BenevolentManacles Msgr. Philip Augustus (Laity, no vote)

@PuritanPope Fr. Bram, Abbot of the Wigbrechtian Friars

@Twan Fr. Jakob, Bishop of Reza

@Balthasar Fr. Guy, Bishop of Ves

@Piov Fr. Benedict

@Drew2_dude Fr. Valdemar

@thesmellypocket Fr. Pius


((DM me if I forgot you))

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pontifical Secretariat, heralded by a courier upon his arrival to the Reznian library where she resided then, sought the missive with haste. Sister Anabel imparted on the youth a quick nod, signing the lorraine before him as she craned into her seat once more.

“Tsk,” grumbled she, her brows gearing wonderingly with introspection.

“A most pressing subject of discourse. Let us see where the fellow dignitaries, too, stand on this matter.”

 

Wielding her pen and therein submerging it into the adjacent inkwell, the women initiated the execution of her reply, narrow and jutted text marking her page.


 

To His Holiness and my fellow councillors,

 

     I would be behooved to preface this writing with the belief – indeed one we all share – that to GOD, we owe the utmost and most noble of our devotions. There is no room for idolatry in the hearts of the faithful. To be subservient and venerate the existence of another in the place of our creator is to diminish the majesty and grace therein.

 

    Azdrazi, historically, were seen as bastions of righteousness and martial prowess – endowed with otherworldly strength and esteem to safeguard the brood of the common descendant... And yet, may we even consider these beings righteous if their might is not derived from GOD, but instead another being that is equally revered? It is holy uncanonist to pardon the existence and assimilation of these creatures, pacted for perpetuity with this Titan, if we must damn those who are mortal and prone to sin and err.

 

     I will digress now unto the matter of the spectres and what I consider to be their nature, in my modest opinion. We cannot know what is veritable and what isn’t with them; they are transcendent remnants of once-corporeal beings – a demographic previously considered to be mere figment by scholars and clerics alike. To uncover their intentions, we must comprehend who they were prior to their expiration and subsequently, why they remain here and have not risen to the heavens to join the hallowed flock.

 

   Unfortunately, to uncover such knowledge on the origin and purpose of such foreign and fastastical creatures who so desperately cling to those world would prove to be a taxing endeavor. We have not the capacity to deal with otherworldly beings of vaguely heretical existence when there are living blasphemers, as was exemplified by the case of the now-deceased Friar Boniface.

 

Duly and humbly signed,

The Secretariat, Sister Anabel Vladimirovna.

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His Holiness and dear brothers of the Faith,

 

It fills my heart with joy that I may now take part in the theological debates of the Mother Church. As listed by His Holiness, there is much to discuss for the Council, so I will get to the point, I pray that God gives me wisdom to argue these points which I think properly align with the Faith.

 

First, on the topic of Aenguls, many things were mentioned in the letter so I will attempt to go through each one by one. On the veneration of Aenguls, I hold the belief that this is nothing more than a celebration of God’s creations. Just as we canonize and venerate humans, even with their many flaws, through Sainthood, it is acceptable to venerate Aenguls who carry out the will of God and further the defense and belief in our Faith. It is not idolatry, but it is simply the celebration of the creation of God that glorifies him through their deeds and works. Next, on the topic Aenguls and if the Catechism and Dogma contradict one another. Aenguls are no doubt instruments of the Divine Will of God, they served as his courier to the Exalted in the Holy Scrolls. The Aengul Tesion gave Horen the laurel and anointed him on behalf of God as his first prophet and the Aengul Eshtamael gave Godfrey the laurel and scepter to assume leadership of man and unite all under God. These are perfect examples of how Aenguls are instruments for Divine Providence, but it is also known that God created the four; Horen, Krug, Malin, and Urguan with Free Will and choice. It is not unreasonable nor wrong to believe God would also create Aengul’s with Free Will, just as the four were gifted, actually It is my belief that this theory is clearly depicted in Iblees. Iblees asserted his personal volition and selfishness through the use of his Free Will, which made him into the epitome of Evil and Sin. I hold the belief that Aenguls were gifted Free Will, which they enact through devout and unwavering faithfulness to God’s Divine Will, and happily serve as an instrument to carry out his Wishes, just as we brothers in Faith use our Free Will to serve as God’s Shepherds to his flock in this world. This however, does not answer whether or not the Dogma and the Catechism are in contradiction. It does seem that the Catechism does disagree with the Dogma, therefore the Catechism must be wrong because the Dogma is indeed Infallible. I hope that this servant’s short discussion and theological argument does spark debate and aids in the correction of the Catechism that must occur.

 

Next, on thesSpecters that roam around Haense. I have personally witnessed some of the events that have transpired in this Faithful Kingdom, and I’ve found them to be quite interesting. It appears to me that some specters are full of evil and their only purpose is to make the lives of others miserable. These wicked specters have been combated by another, a specter that seems to be good, that serves the purpose of stopping the wicked spirit from tormenting others. This made my mind wonder, what if God allows for specters that are good faithful Canonists to stay in this world to fight off the specters that are wicked that cling to this world to avoid the Void? God could allow some of these good specters to stay on earth because their mission is not finished, and they must continue to serve him here to fight off the wicked spirits that attempt to torment his flock. While I am unsure of the true cause, this could be food for thought and I will continue to pray on the matter.

 

Finally, on the Azdrazi. I hold the belief that Azdrazism is nothing more than a form of deviance. The Azdrazi use fire similar to dragons, which can be used for malicious intent. In the Scroll of the Spirit, it tells us, “But you reserve your gift for your own power, and your own gain, and unknowingly, the gain of Iblees. 6 But GOD’s is the eternal power, the mysterious power with no part nor piece, no lowly anatomy. 7 For who can imitate the Most Unknowable? 8 The Lord is the Lord GOD without peer, but you seek power alike to his, and even power equal. 9 This is a selfish and impossible sin, for there is no power alike to GOD. 10 For He is the Lord GOD incomparable, and who can truly understand Him?(1:5-8). The Azdrazi contradict this, and I hope that my fellow brothers and His Holiness pray on this verse, and consider strongly the condemnation of these deviants for striving to gain power similar to God.

 

Finally, I pray for you, my brothers and God’s faithful. During these trying times of the Inferi and Daemons, we must remain steadfast in our Faith and pray for God’s guidance to carry us through these wicked days. May God watch over us all.

 

His Servant, 

Fr. Karl Kortrevich

Edited by Drew2_dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“His Holiness and esteemed men of God,

 

The issues of ghosts and Azdrazi are intertwined in my opinion. Both are attempts to cheat death and attain immortality to dodge judgement, and I believe both are caused by Daemonic magic. It is said both in the deuterocanon and in secular histories that the principle part of Iblees’ armies were the risen dead, and indeed Auspice affirms this will be the nature of his final armies:

43 And in his army are Iblees’s slaves, the Saulicians and the apostates, consorters with Iblees, witches, and all those who serve them.
44 They are the iniquitous dead, who hate GOD.

Now, at this point of the narrative, Iblees is once more in the Void. However, this follows on from other verses about his rise from the Void and the world being his conquest, so I believe this affirms he will once more raise the dead as part of his armies.

 

So clearly, then, Daemons have the power to raise the dead. Even mortal necromancers have been known to raise the dead, although it is less clear whether or not their reanimations are truly “souled” or not. Regardless, I would assert that the reason why Daemons and certain mages can raise dead souls is that both are connected to the Void and able to summon from it, as with all voidal magics. If true, this would imply that they cannot raise the souls of the saved. I believe these souls can only descend briefly by their own will and the will of God, and that we may determine them by their pious demeanour(a damned soul would never profess love for God), the importance of their message(they must be sent for a reason), and the brevity of their stay(the sinless have no desire to linger in a sinful world). We see all three of this conditions fulfilled in the Descension of Godfrey and in the miracles of other saints.

 

However, I believe there is a third kind of ghost: those neither saved nor damned. There have been spectres and other paranormal apparitions sighted which were not malicious and indeed even aided mortals, but which nevertheless were not the perfected beings we’d expect the saved to be. Therefore I believe that these souls were “chained” to this realm so to speak, and somehow magically or miraculously prevented from being given their final judgement.

 

If an intentional act, as it is for the Azdrazi who worship their Daemon in return for immortality, this is gravely sinful. It is an explicit rejection of God’s will and plan for one’s soul. So I would absolutely condemn the Azdrazi, both for this and their idolatrous worship. However, I don’t believe all souls like this are in this state intentionally. It may indeed be possible for a soul to be trapped to this realm against their will, perhaps by way of a magical curse of some kind. The increasing prevalence of these sorts of spectres might indicate some kind of Daemonic meddling, or perhaps merely a coven of powerful mages. I believe we’d need advice from experts on the magical arts to resolve this question, and I don’t know if it’s one that could be resolved dogmatically at all.

 

Finally, on the subject of Aenguls: I’ve written at length on this subject before, so I won’t bore you with repetition of my arguments, but I’ll simply restate my beliefs that their veneration is acceptable, that real Aenguls would never act or encourage others to act sinfully, and that Aenguls are perfect servants of God. Any idolatry of an Aengul would never be encouraged by that Aengul itself. The service demanded would either be veneration, or the “Aengul” actually a Daemon in disguise. The issue of determining an Aengul from a Daemon in these such cases is one I’ve raised before, but as of yet have been unable to resolve.

 

Regards,

Ailred Cardinal Reinmar.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pius of Sutica writes a brief note:

 

“Your Holiness, Eminences, and Excellencies:

 

I am far from a specialist in this subject, and submit myself to your judgement in this matter, only, I hasten to add this point: namely that if we are forced to choose between a dogmatic document and a Catechism, it is meet that we go with the document that proclaims itself dogmatic. As the late Fr. Boniface (God rest his soul) was wont to point out, (before his eventual stray into heresy and schism) a Catechism is not an infallible document. It is merely a document for the benefit of the faithful for explaining and defending the Faith. Therefore, Catechisms should be read with the greatest respect and reverence, and we ought to embrace their teaching insofar as they do not contradict the Scrolls, or authoritative dogma, but insofar as they do, we must go with the dogma. I think I can best express it by saying that Catechisms are authoritative, but not dogmatic. I know nothing more, and have not the time to undertake a rigourous study of this. I leave it in Your Excellencies hands, and ultimately, God’s.

 

I remain your humble servant,

 

Fr. Pius, F.S.S.C.T.”

Edited by thesmellypocket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@VIROS


Friar Benedict confers with his nephew Grand Prince Lothar about the topics and sends his correspondence to the Pontifical council regarding the matters aforesaid:

Your Holiness and dear brethren,

On the notion of Aengelic Veneration;
The role of the aenguls as instruments of God’s divine will is indisputable. However, the enduring question resides in their importance and veneration in the life of our faith. Aengulic Intercession must be understood in the context of our present tradition in the communion of saints. Any veneration is reserved for what I label as “personal affinity” in which the faithful may pray and revere the model of the aengul solely in their capacity as instruments of God’s will. The aengul, like the saint, is a mere proxy to intercede to the one, true Creator, and should not be esteemed as independent from the divine will. The Holy Scrolls recall the actions of the aengul Tesion in the anointing of Exalted Horen and in the call of virtuous unity in anointing Godfrey through the aengul Eshtael. 

 

It is with great caution that we examine the aenguls in the context of their role in the advancement of the Divine Will. Since we have established the aenguls as executors of divine providence, the aenguls cannot be venerated beyond their mandate. In this regard, the will of aenguls cannot create dogma or instill moral virtuous that fall outside of the Horenic virtue. We as the faithful cannot heed the demands of aenguls, or any other entities for that matter, which may deviate from the dogmatic principles of Divine Revelation through the Scrolls.

On the notion of Aengelic free will;
It is impossible to disregard that aenguls have free will. They are not God, and do not share full omnipotent divinity, and therefore must be separate free-willed agents. To say aenguls do not have free will may imply that they are merely fragmented parts of God, pieces of the divine will that descend from the Skies to intercede for man. The Scrolls may clear their distinct entity from the Creator’s hand. They possess a predisposition of utilizing this free will from God to carry out His divine will for the sake of creation. However, it is through aenguls that divine grace is transmitted to fulfill God’s agenda as seen in the inauguration of the prophetic succession. Through free will, aenguls may have the capacity to fall from their station of grace and corrupt free will, but we have seen their instrumental and foundational character to “rule over what is” (Gospel 1:7) having been done with fidelity to impose virtue to creation. We understand that their actions and orientation revolve around fulfilling the divine plan as free and devoted agents. To further elaborate, we must juxtapose them to their counterparts, daemons, who pervert this free will to fulfill selfish and deviant purposes. If aenguls did not have free will, the mere existence of Iblees would be impossible, for God does not intentionally create evil. Such would be contrary to his omnibenevolence. Aenguls exist as expressions of God’s will, but have also demonstrated throughout history and time that some pursue actions in contrast to advancing the virtuous faith. To that end, let us return to aenguls. The telos of aengelic free will, unlike daemons, is to demonstrate to the faithful how to use one’s free will rightly to advance virtue and fulfill the covenant with God. Therefore, we see how free will is perfectly mastered and closely bonded with God and not with one’s own hubris as demonstrated by Iblees and Harren.

 

The nature of spiritual apparitions across Haense; 

The Canonist Church with respect to spectres and ghostly entities views these as problematic in the eschatology of the faith. Spectres, for example, are a reanimation of being who seek out to complete an unfulfilled or unsatisfactory life. The direction of the world pilgrimage is oriented toward the conscience fulfillment of Horenic virtue. Spectres present great consternation because this state of being is an entrapment of the soul from reuniting in virtue in the Seven Skies. As such, the nature of spiritual apparitions present to us a divergence of the inherent destiny of the soul into the afterlife. The Church should encounter ghostly entities with great consternation. Any circumstance where salvation is impeded after death is a cause to mourn.

Guidelines for distinguishing a genuine saintly apparition from a ghostly haunting;
Saintly apparition should be treated with great scrutiny. We need not be deceived or fall into the entrapment of ruses that the Scroll of Gospel recognized in the guise of Iblees and Saul. We must remain vigilant, ever watchful to hear the signs of holiness and remain true to the seven virtues of Canonist belief. We should notice if a person is speaking in irrational ways unbecoming of their character. We should be watchful that the saints nor the aenguls of God’s bidding do not provoke, threaten, or demean creation but to intercede on behalf of it. More care and study should be given to this study. 


Doctrine concerning the status of the Azdrazi in Canonism;

The Canonist Church must categorically and unequivocally condemn Azdrazism. Azdromoth supplants a form of “cultic” worship that stands in contrast to full devotion to God. Even more, it is a form of devotion where an adherent submits themselves to Azdromoth in return for powers inordinate to that of the station of man. The faithful must not preoccupy themselves with such powers, but solely with what is holy and virtuous. We need not look far to understand this. The Scroll of Gospel, at the conception of the Four Brothers, recalls the self-interest of the three who took no mind to God but to their own faculties. Such is the same behavior exuded by Azdrazi. They take pride and derive their power and strength not in glory to God but in the service of the one who bestows them such abilities. We may also see these reasons in why the Church should seek to condemn Azdrazism. I refer you, dear brethren, to the words of divine revelation at the utterance of Exalted Owyn:

11 So I find that you seek impossible knowledge not for the good of your fellows, or precious wisdom, but in the desire of power.  12 Indeed, this is an insatiable desire, for none can overcome the Lord. 13 This is the sin of envying GOD, a desire which cannot be attained, and the deepest blasphemy.

Spirits 7:11-13

 

If Exalted Owyn was anointed to smite the wicked, the unrighteous, and the proud, the Church should remain true to our scriptures. We need not derive from other beings to obtain power, for we serve God and fulfill our lives in Horenic virtue.

 

With fidelity,
Fr. Benedict of Muldav, O.W.F.



mVAVB6s-GkJItUsp1gmCU9MMo2biKQAAIw8wx1FnkNa925OuyHKanjN3qZshRtdeRjk5Qjbu6iAhZGsIjorUB03w6OSaUZ_LhnF7xhnG8MgdKxJCPLn0u6DJ602nf2FQ7uYxvN5W


 

Edited by Piov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Piov

 

“To the learned Fr. Benedict,

 

While I agree with the rest of your edifying letter, I must express my disagreement with you on the matter of Aengulic free will. The Et Principia Ecclesiae Dogma states: “Aenguls are devoid of will and thus total servants the Creator,” and it does this for good reason. If Aenguls had free will, then they could turn against God, and therefore Canonists could unknowingly be venerating an evil entity merely by continuing their ancient practice. The reason we can venerate Aenguls and not Daemons is the same reason we can venerate saints but not living holy men. With saints we know infallibly that they are perfect servants of God, and with Him in the skies. With a mortal man, however pious he may appear to be, he may harbour occult heresies or secret vices we know not of. If Aenguls had free will to turn against God, any one of them could also secretly be an agent of sin and malice. In such a case, venerating them would be grave blasphemy. God would not permit His faithful to accidentally commit blasphemy.

 

As for the issue of a lack of free will making them part of God, I do not see why this is so. A golem has no free will except to serve its master, yet we do not say a golem is part of its master. Why could the same not apply to Aenguls? I see the issue in that, if Aenguls have no free will and no autonomy, one could say they are just God acting through Aengulic forms rather than independent entities. But I don’t think this is necessarily the case. It is possible for Aenguls to merely correspond perfectly to God’s will, rather than be extensions of it. The Et Principia Ecclesiae Dogma also says that evil is “defined in the faith as a lack of godliness”. It can therefore be said that any creature with no capacity to sin corresponds perfectly to God’s will. We know that the saved are sinless, and that all creation will be perfectly sinless after the world is renewed in Auspice, so Aenguls being incapable of sin would make them no more extensions of God than a saint’s incapacity to sin does.

 

Now, of course, the saints had free will while alive and presumably retain their capacity to perform independent action(excluding acts of sin) while in the Skies. However, it is possible, I believe, to reconcile the Aengulic lack of free will with their own capacity to perform independent action. This may sound like a direct contradiction, but it is rooted in the Et Principia Ecclesiae Dogma’s unclear wording. For while it says Aenguls have no will, it also says “they possess free thought”. Also, just after it says Aenguls have no free will, it contrasts that with Daemons’ capacity to “choose between good and evil”. Therefore, I assert that the “lack of will” refers to a lack of a capacity to choose between good and evil, rather than a complete lack of autonomy. If that’s the case, Aenguls may act autonomously, but only within the confines of “goodness”. Since goodness is godliness, per the EPED, this would still perfectly correspond to God’s will and leave them “total servants the Creator”. I further justify this with by presenting the following apparent contradiction in the EPED:  “they possess free thought, and worship the Creator in total obedience”. One might think that if Aenguls posses free thought, this means they could choose whether or not to serve. But it appears not the case. They posses free thought, but only within the confines of what is virtuous.

 

I await your response.

 

Your brother in faith,

Ailred.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“My Most Reverend Father Benedict,

 

Your recent letter was very enlightening, but this is only what I have always come to expect from a priestly soul so enlightened by divine grace. I would only add that I do not think there is anything contrary to faith and morals in obeying an Angel, insofar as it does not contradict obedience to God. For neither does the obedience of a subject to his lord contradict the obedience of a Canonist to his Lord, if there be nothing contrary to faith and morals. My rule, therefore, is that if an Angel should come down and warn against the errors of our day, and urge us to turn back to God, to give to the poor and live according to Virtue, to say specific vocal prayers or teach us to see an already established Dogma in a new light, then I can see nothing contrary to faith or morals in taking heed of it. But if they should say anything contrary to these things, we ought to utterly reject the apparition. Other important measures for the verity of an apparition include the state of mind of the recipient, and the authenticity of signs made to confirm the alleged apparition’s truth. In these matters intellect and reason must have primacy; they are not of the faith.

 

In any case if the Church should investigate and approve such a thing, it should never make belief in it binding, for the Revelation received in the Scrolls alone is needful for our salvation. Anything else which is alleged to be received is for the private benefit or devotion of Church members, and not for changing or challenging Dogma. As for example, the apparitions of St. Julia to St. Kristoff, and the apparition of St. Catherine to Ven. Humbert.

 

I remain your obedient son in deepest affection,

 

Fr. Pius, Priestly Fraternity of Saints Jude and Kristoff.”

Edited by thesmellypocket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@argonian

Your Eminence,

Thank you for your reply on my commentaries of the aforesaid topics of this council. I do pray that this correspondence finds you well. I am equally grateful to receive your dissent on my view regarding the Aengelic free will and find this moment most opportune to address my argument further. Indeed, I am clearly aware of what is written in Et Principia and believe that it is the duty of this council to critically review and reinforce the magisterial authority to which we profess. 

Your arguments concerning the idea that aenguls may harbor malicious intent if we believed that they have free will is troublesome. I do not assert that there is a hidden agenda harbored by the aenguls should they have free will. To claim that the aenguls may have hidden intent, and that by extension we may be venerating evil, is unjustified. It is impossible for God to create evil. It is the perversion of free will that corrupts all things into turning away from God. I shall convey my response by inaugurating two arguments.

Argument of Essence
As I have alluded to in my prior correspondence, we must take into consideration free will as it relates to divine essence. I should like to further explore your analogy on the golem and its relationship to the master. By carrying out the will of its master, is it not the master who is liable for the consequences of its golem? I should surely believe it is, and therefore they are ontologically united. Free will distinguishes one entity from another by endowing independent thought, action, and by extension defining one’s matter of being. Obversely, when one is subject to another’s will, it can be argued that they are in fact one, deprived of any distinct substance in thought, action, and matter. The problem that we are confronted with in asserting that aenguls have no free will is the notion, then, that God and the aenguls are of the same essence. Indeed, aenguls are created by God, but it is impossible for them to share the same thoughts, will, and action. Do the Holy Scrolls not tell us two and twenty times that the Lord God is without peer?

Furthermore, the Scrolls establish the divine essence as the God of omnipotence. Why is it then needed for God to create inferior beings to carry out His will if the divine presence is vast, ultimate, and omnipresent? God can enact all things without need for inferior immortal servants. Surely, it is the Scroll of Gospel that God gave the aengudaemons freedom to reign over the plane of existence, barring the Void. This essence gave them an independent character to shape their dominion and the bounties afforded to them. It was in this narrative that gives them full thought and action to do what they believed was best to glorify God. In the next argument, I shall lay out why free will is necessary in the devolution of daemons into the rejection of God and why the aenguls are exemplars of virtuous free will. 



Argument of Aengudaemon Equivalence
I shall respond by citing the point to which we are first introduced to the aenguls, and to an extent their counterparts, the daemons. The Scroll of Gospel dictates the story of the creation of the Immortals:

6 And from His breath, GOD created His immortals, the Aenguls and Daemons, and named them His servants and messengers. 7 He assigned their roles, and said that Aenguls shall rule all that is, and Daemons all that is not.

Gospel 1:6-7
 


The aengudaemons were created concurrently, existing as counterparts for one to rule that is and to rule that is not. They were, in fact, created with independence to look over the bounties of the planes. It was then God who oversaw their actions and saw what was pleasing and what was not (Gospel 1:20). The Scrolls give us no distinction in character or essence, except in their mandate to minister to their respective dominions. Neither were the aenguls nor the daemons given inherent good or evil attributes. However, how must we account for the aberration of Iblees and the daemons? The answer must be free will. We must then believe that the aegudaemons were given free will to ward over the plane under God. However, it was the corruption of free will by Iblees, the chief among daemons, that caused his fall from grace by utilizing this gift for his own purposes.

Regarding your point in stating, “It is possible for Aenguls to merely correspond perfectly to God’s will, rather than be extensions of it”, I must state that I do not disagree whatsoever. Moreover, it is my belief that through their created nature, they have perfected their free will as servants in the divine realm. As such, that is why we as human beings are therefore imperfect with our free will and thus strive to perfect our calling. Was it not the aengul Tesion that descended into the mortal plane to anoint and assist in the divine revelation of virtue to Horen? The veneration of the aenguls serves to enable the faithful to look upon these beings as holy and pure masters of their will and disposition toward God. Though we are capable of sin subject to our free will, is it not our worldly journey to avoid sin and correspond to the will of God?

We can draw the metanarrative of the Scrolls as a dichotomy of good and evil, in which the “good” is the full complementarity of free will with virtue. The aengudaemons serve as the first instance of this struggle, which then became a struggle advanced unto all Creation when the ruse of Iblees corrupted the sanctity of the Four Brothers. The aenguls serve as references of a full mastery toward free will, whereas the daemons serve as models of departing from this calling.

 

I dedicate this reply to your welfare and that of the Holy Canonist Church.

 


@thesmellypocket

Revered Father Pius,

I write to you with gratitude in your insights on my reflections of apparitions and that of the aenguls. I am indeed in full concurrence to your views, believing that we should heed all of the messages of God’s messengers. It is in strengthening our communication with the divine through prayer and contemplate that we may find a greater relationship with virtue. We must hold true the divine revelation and look steadfast for agents who might seek to cause us to abandon our faith. It is in these instances that rebuke is in order. In the cases in which we find true accordance to Horenic virtue from apparitions, we should diligently and respectfully heed them. 

I dedicate this reply to your welfare and that of the Holy Canonist Church.

 


 

With fidelity,
Fr. Benedict of Muldav, O.W.F.

 



tpFRs2R4GxyWXSBdKMZYJM6rUQmfRI6wVuzy6Ro8rus2QMwdMwznCKBB4tW2iY6FzS9HhFiebrCKG5Kwncs4CHonigTGWips_BiD9Aw5zbcMWvtImgqPHLheXN3hNttiMZ_Ouf8a


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@argonian

To the Honourable Brother Ailred,

 

In response to your letter expressing disagreement to Brother Benedict, I must express my own opinion on the matter, in concurrence with Brother Benedict as I wrote in my own letter to the Council Previously. I will restate my prior argument to the Free Will question, one that I think is very practical, as I am a practical man. God created Horen, Malin, Krug, and Urguan and in each he instilled Free Choice or Free Will to choose the path for themselves. As we know the story goes that it was Horen who chose God, but I wish to put the emphasis on the creation. In each of his creations he instilled Free Will, it is reasonable to assume he would do the same in Aenguls. To cite Iblees and the Daemons, they chose to use their Free Will for personal volition which makes them evil, the epitome of evil. Therefore, if God created Free Will and instilled it into his creations, it could be inferred that he would instill it in his Aenguls as well. You may argue that in order to have free will they may use it to turn against him, but I look at it in a different light. Aenguls decide to use their  Free will to be the instruments of the Divine Will of God, they decide to devoutly do his bidding as us men of the cloth similarly do. As the clergy uses their Free Will to carry out God’s Will as his Shepherds in the world, Aenguls choose to be instruments of his Divine Work. I await your response dear Brother, may God be with you.

 

His Servant,

Fr. Karl Kortrevich

 

Edited by Drew2_dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Piov @Drew2_dude

 

‘To the Honourable Brothers Benedict and Valdemar,

 

While I appreciate your responses, dear brothers in faith, I find them inherently self-contradictory. You both argue Aenguls have free-will and yet you both emphasise that this does not mean they would ever do evil, with Fr. Benedict even going so far as to call such an idea “unjustified”. Brothers, with all due respect, either they can choose between good and evil or they cannot. Asserting that they can, but that we can somehow know with certainty that they never would, is really an assertion that they cannot. You can’t tell me that the idea of an Aengul harbouring secret malice is unjustified if you say they have free will like any descendant or Daemon. Lord knows there are countless of those with such malices. Either they have free will, in the sense of choosing between good and evil, and any one of the Aenguls we venerate could at any moment turn against God with or without our knowing, or else they don’t. If it’s the former, we could one day be venerating a servant of God and the next be venerating a fallen sinner merely by venerating the same Aengul, and be completely none the wiser.

 

I understand that if Aenguls had the same thoughts as God that this would make them akin to God. I quoted from the EPED which agrees they have free thoughts. But while a golem never declines its master’s orders, this does not mean they don’t have thoughts. They have autonomy in how they go about following these orders, and they still show rational thought at times when they have no orders. Rather than being thoughtless, Golems merely perfectly correspond to their master’s will. The master is responsible in the sense a general is responsible for the orders he gives his soldiers, but this does not make the golem an extension of his master. If Aenguls are sinless and good, then they would always desire to serve God as all creatures should, and therefore always follow His orders while still retaining autonomy in action. Their free-thinking minds, free from the temptation of sin, simply have no inclination whatsoever to ever reject an God’s orders or sin. Imagine if the Aenguls could do evil and could go against God’s orders. Tesion could have decided to give the laurel to Saul instead. Eshtael could have crowned the pagan Mirtok instead of Godfrey. You say this is totally unjustified, but you cannot deny that the Aenguls could betray God in such horrid ways at any time if they have free will.

 

As for Aengudaemonic Equivalence: It is indeed true that Aenguls and Daemons are often conflated in Scripture, with Gospel referring to them collectively as “Immortals”. And yet, they aren’t always conflated, because at the same time Scripture always makes sure to note when an “Immortal” is an Aengul or Daemon. The distinction is important enough to be noted every time. The Church has always made this distinction too, and not just in the EPED. We have a doctrine of Aengulic Veneration and the Compendium of Aengulic Hierarchies, but no equivalents for Daemons. The latter can neatly categorise Aenguls into separate categories based on their roles, knowing that they’ll never abandon these roles. It could not do this if Aenguls could betray God, or otherwise all the information in it could theoretically have been totally false even seconds after it was written. That’s why there’s no equivalent for Daemons, and why we do not venerate them. If Aenguls and Daemons are truly equivalent, then we could venerate them too. We could no more condemn someone who venerates the Daemon Dragur than we do someone who venerates the Aengul Tesion. And for both, under the notion of Aengulic Free Wil, that veneration could be offered to a corrupt entity.

 

I will reiterate what I wrote previously on this. We may venerate saints because we know they are in the Skies, and all souls in the Skies are “healed of their flaws and released from the desires of the flesh”(Catechism of the Canonist Church). They are cleaned from their sin and any inclination to sin, and can never again do evil or turn away from God. The veneration of Aenguls can only be permissible if they are similar, as the EPED teaches, or otherwise we could be venerating entities that scorn God without even our knowing. Even the possibility of doing so is completely impermissible, and would render any prayer offered to an Aengul a sin.

 

Your Brother in Faith,

Ailred.’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@argonian



Your Eminence, 

I believe we enter into danger if we speculate as to what might aenguls do. We should trust the Scriptures and acknowledge how it was various aenguls who advanced the divine will. I trust the prophets in their clear and infallible revelations as Verbum Dei. If you believe that we should venerate aenguls due to their goodness and inability to sin then it is important to acknowledge that they have pleased God in their deeds (Gospel 1:20), without conflict or ego. If that is not the case, Iblees would not be named the “chief among daemons”(Gospel 1:14), but of aenguls as well. Clearly this is not the case. The Scrolls definitively tell us it is the daemons, and the daemons alone who are capable of rejecting God and falling into malice. Then, we could plausibly infer that the aenguls perfected their immortal state as bearers of perfect “virtuous free will.” You claim that my argument is self-contradictory, that free will and perfect virtue are incompatible. Is this not what the saints have done? Is this not what Exalted Horen has done? They all had overcome any sinful estate to embrace virtuous free will. We do not speculate that Exalted Horen nor the saints, at any moment in their worldly pilgrimage, corrupted their free will to serve other ends. We should not then deign to think the aenguls would corrupt the graces of God in the emanations of glory. We know truly and distinctly that the aenguls, such as Tesion and Eshmael, proclaimed the messages and revelations of God to the anointed prophets so that all might be saved. 

I urge you to reflect on why our Holy Church owes respect and reverence to various spiritual figures, be they prophets or saints. They show us how we can overcome evil, how we can abate the vices that free will can afford. They show us how to be one with virtue, to heed the call of God, and be messengers of His wisdom. This is why we must trust that the aenguls, despite their free will to rule over what is, just as the daemons were to rule what is not, gave themselves in service to the divine will. The ability of the daemons shows why their equivalence became corrupted and therefore antithetical to our belief in God. In my argument of aengudaemon equivalence, I have offered an explanation as to why Aenguls and Daemons have been distinguished in their service to God, and why the Church has opened veneration to the former and not the latter. The argument of aengudaemon equivalence presents the reason as to why we revere aenguls and not daemons, not to demonstrate that they are of equal value worthy of our reverence. It was the ability for the aenguls to resign totally to God, barring all ability to deviate just as the daemons did, to serve Him. Did Exalted Horen not exude the same in comparison to his three brothers? It is the aenguls who have perfected their mastery and complementarity of virtue toward God, whereas the daemons did the opposite. I urge you not to distort my argument to suggest that I believe aenguls and daemons are the same and therefore are due equal veneration. I have stated clearly that the factor of free will must necessarily exist to show us why the Church has made distinctions and why the Scripture show only aenguls who advanced the prophetic revelations of our faith.

 

 

 

With fidelity, 
Fr. Benedict of Muldav, O.W.F.
 
Bishop of Petrovic, Archdiocese of Jorenus

 

 

 

mVAVB6s-GkJItUsp1gmCU9MMo2biKQAAIw8wx1FnkNa925OuyHKanjN3qZshRtdeRjk5Qjbu6iAhZGsIjorUB03w6OSaUZ_LhnF7xhnG8MgdKxJCPLn0u6DJ602nf2FQ7uYxvN5W
 

Edited by Piov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Piov

 

‘Friar Benedict,

 

It is not I who speculate here. I’m following the teaching of Et Principia Ecclesiae Dogma, while you’re speculating that the aforementioned centuries-old teaching is incorrect. I didn’t cast aspersions over the nature or motivations of your writings in spite of this, so I’d appreciate if I weren’t accused of entering dangerous territory for defending the dogma of the Church. Saying that a being which can sin... can sin is not speculation at all, friar. It’s simple fact. Either the Aenguls have the capacity to sin, and therefore could sin at any time, or they do not. Now you tell me that the Scrolls tell us that only the Daemons are capable of rejecting God. As God is goodness, is truth, is love, et cetera, any sin is to reject God. So by saying only Daemons can reject God, you say only they can sin and therefore that the Aenguls cannot. How is this a disagreement with my argument that Aenguls are incapable of sin? And yet earlier you said, “Through free will, aenguls may have the capacity to fall from their station of grace and corrupt free will”. Do they have this capacity or not? Saying the telos of their free will is to demonstrate how we should use ours does not answer this question, since it does not address whether or not Aenguls are bound to follow that purpose. If they are, then they do not actually have free will at all, and this idea of “perfected free will” is a meaningless formula. If they are not bound by that telos, then they are capable of sin and you have just contradicted yourself.

 

Then you say that the Aenguls have perfected their free will as did the saints. I’ve already addressed this at length. All souls in the Skies had the capacity to sin while alive and, although they may have done their best to reject sin, most virtuous souls still pass on marked by some sinful deeds. But as they enter the Skies, they are cleansed of these sins and all sinful inclinations, and they lose the capacity to sin entirely. There can be no sin in the Seven Skies. If Aenguls are to be akin to the saints in this respect, then they too must have no capacity to sin.

 

I refer back to what I said in the first letter. The EPED states that Aenguls think freely, and therefore one can argue they are autonomous. But their autonomy is limited to only those things which are good. As the Creator’s perfect servants they do not have free will in the sense dogma speaks of it, i.e the capacity to choose between good and evil like Daemons.

 

Your Brother in Faith,

Ailred.’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@argonian

 

Your Eminence, 

Firstly, I still find something lacking. If we exclude free will to any condition of being to the aenguls, how do we acknowledge why daemons corrupted their Immortal state while Aenguls did not? The Scroll of Gospel states that God created them both at the same moment, without any inherent attributes to good or evil. If God wanted one to have no will but His and one to be like humans with the freedom to choose, to what end does this serve? Following your supposition that aenguls are free from sin, without capacity to defy God, then by their very nature, daemons must be the same. Surely, we all believe this is not the case. What, then, explains Iblees’ envy and the fallen daemons who joined him in the Void? If God created aenguls without any precondition to defy His Will and be perfect complements to Him, then one can argue that He created daemons to become predisposed to misdeeds. This is problematic. Furthermore, even if we were to rationalize that aenguls were created perfectly pure and daemons with free will and willingly chose to defy God, what would account for this discrepancy? Then, we either concede that God intentionally created evil beings which is contrary to His essence or we deviate from Exalted Godfrey’s revelation that aengudaemons were made concurrently. That is why free will is a necessary contingency to ALL of God’s creation, even the aenguls. 

Secondly, I refer you back to the value of the dichotomy of Aenguls and Daemons since you pose your argument so devotedly on the choice of sin and no sin. The entirety of prophetic revelation which composes our scripture is clearly about overcoming sinful estates (a byproduct of free will) and embracing pure virtue. Aenguls must necessarily have free will because they serve as models for perfecting free will to the rest of creation. Any capacity to sin does not necessarily mean that sin was committed. Since the Immortals were tasked with setting forth to order the creation of the mortal world (Gospel 1:10), they are an immediate entity bridging the glory of God to the material plane. The aenguls were agents to guide man and show the prophets the beautiful mastery of conforming to the Divine Will. The daemons serve to demonstrate to us what should not become of us. 

 

 

With fidelity, 
Fr. Benedict of Muldav, O.W.F.

Bishop of Petrovic, Archdiocese of Jorenus

 

 

 

mVAVB6s-GkJItUsp1gmCU9MMo2biKQAAIw8wx1FnkNa925OuyHKanjN3qZshRtdeRjk5Qjbu6iAhZGsIjorUB03w6OSaUZ_LhnF7xhnG8MgdKxJCPLn0u6DJ602nf2FQ7uYxvN5W

Edited by Piov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Piov said:

@argonian

 

Your Eminence, 

Firstly, I still find something lacking. If we exclude free will to any condition of being to the aenguls, how do we acknowledge why daemons corrupted their Immortal state while Aenguls did not? The Scroll of Gospel states that God created them both at the same moment, without any inherent attributes to good or evil. If God wanted one to have no will but His and one to be like humans with the freedom to choose, to what end does this serve? Following your supposition that aenguls are free from sin, without capacity to defy God, then by their very nature, daemons must be the same. Surely, we all believe this is not the case. What, then, explains Iblees’ envy and the fallen daemons who joined him in the Void? If God created aenguls without any precondition to defy His Will and be perfect complements to Him, then one can argue that He created daemons to become predisposed to misdeeds. This is problematic. Furthermore, even if we were to rationalize that aenguls were created perfectly pure and daemons with free will and willingly chose to defy God, what would account for this discrepancy? Then, we either concede that God intentionally created evil beings which is contrary to His essence or we deviate from Exalted Godfrey’s revelation that aengudaemons were made concurrently. That is why free will is a necessary contingency to ALL of God’s creation, even the aenguls. 

Secondly, I refer you back to the value of the dichotomy of Aenguls and Daemons since you pose your argument so devotedly on the choice of sin and no sin. The entirety of prophetic revelation which composes our scripture is clearly about overcoming sinful estates (a byproduct of free will) and embracing pure virtue. Aenguls must necessarily have free will because they serve as models for perfecting free will to the rest of creation. Any capacity to sin does not necessarily mean that sin was committed. Since the Immortals were tasked with setting forth to order the creation of the mortal world (Gospel 1:10), they are an immediate entity bridging the glory of God to the material plane. The aenguls were agents to guide man and show the prophets the beautiful mastery of conforming to the Divine Will. The daemons serve to demonstrate to us what should not become of us. 

 

((What’s the Your X thing for a friar? Tried googling it; found nothing))

@Piov

Friar Benedict,

 

I don’t see the need to equate the capabilities and natures of Aenguls and Daemons so strongly. I see no reason why God could not have chosen to grant free will to the Daemons and not the Aenguls. He created a multitude of different kinds of creatures, none exactly akin to another. He made mortals different to the Immortals, what end did this serve? Why did He need Immortals at all? He made animals with no rational mind to choose good and evil, and plants which do almost nothing at all. In the same way God didn’t need to create perfect servants in the Aenguls, He didn’t need to create animals--He could’ve just created the descendants with no desire to eat. He didn’t need to create at all. We cannot peer into the mind of the unknowable and attempt to understand the intentions of an incomprehensible divinity, and it is foolish to even try. All we can know is what we are told through Scripture and Tradition. We know from Scripture that man sins and that Daemons sin. It is part of Sacred Tradition that Aenguls do not. The infallibility of dogma is a question that goes back to the Second Council of Metz and has no easy answer, but whether infallible or not it should still be deferred to. The assertion that God had no good reason or need for will-less servants, or to create Aenguls differently to Daemons, is not enough to dismiss it.

 

A capacity to sin does not necessarily mean that sin was committed, no, but it does mean there is a very strong possibility that it has been or will be in the future. Aenguls modelling perfecting free will is meaningless. Either they have free will and therefore can break free from that “model” and sin, or else they do not and therefore do not model free will at all. If the former, the same problems for potentially venerating secretly malicious and unholy entities still apply.

 

I’ll jump back a moment to your assertion that, by my beliefs, Daemons must have been made “to become predisposed to misdeeds”. With all due respect, venerable friar, this is exactly what your model assets. You explicitly say it: “The daemons serve to demonstrate to us what should not become of us.” As for mine, I don’t believe the Aengulic lack of inclination to sin means God created Daemons to sin. Whether He created all creatures with a capacity to sin or not, He still created creatures with a capacity to sin. If giving that capacity to do evil to all but one kind of creature is somehow creating evil, then it would still apply if He gave that capacity to all creatures. The “Problem of Evil”, aptly addressed in the Catechism, applies equally and is resolved equally for both models.

 

I don’t know if we can come to an agreement on this matter. Nevertheless I pray that our colleagues will vote with whichever of us is right, and I shall trust in the Church’s judgement even if it judges against me.

 

Your Brother in Faith,

Ailred. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...