Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Please Like, Share & Subscribe if this podcast brings good fruit to you.

If you would like to support this content, please consider becoming a paid member. Visit the About Page to learn more.

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

Read more

Subscribe now

This channel is viewer-supported. If it brings good fruit into your life, please consider supporting through Buy Me a Coffee.
You can also support my work by subscribing to the Substack, THE SOPHIURGIST!

Share

Therefore when [He] was born from me, I felt as if it was half my heart was born and went out of me … so I, when my Son was scourged and pricked, [it was] as if my heart were scourged and pricked. — Our Lady to St. Bridget of Sweden, Revelations Book 1.

Dear Unknown Friends,

As a geriatric nurse of 14 years, the biological realities of the heart are always present before me. Many of my patients over the years have suffered, to various degrees, from congestive heart failure, or other coronary maladies. I often quip with my peers, “I’m a man who deals with the mortal affairs of the heart.”

With the month of the Sacred Heart of Jesus well-matured, my attention to this vital circulatory organ is directed towards its mystical realities. Put more piously, I am drawn ever inward towards reflection of—and desirous of union with—Christ and Mary’s inexhaustible cores. In them is an endless palace of incomparable mysteries of which I never tire of. I pray I may be graced with basking in contemplation of them every moment of every day without distraction! So be it!

But what do I mean by “mystical realities” concerning a mass of vascular and muscular tissue spasming rhythmically at different tempos?

The atheist—even the agnostic at the least—will look upon this “clump of cells” they’ve reduced us to and muse that there are certainly no grand designs. The furthest their reductions and dissections go towards the metaphysical is into their absurd, gematric realm of quantum theory, so long as it remains divorced from ontology.1 Thanks be to God, this is not the true state of affairs! In His Creation—in the specific way He deigned It to manifest—we find untold mysteries and fathomless depths overflowing with a communication of His Love for us. And all of this being far more real than, say, the Higgs Boson.

While it is by no means the chief of God’s wonders, the heart is one of excellence and highest dignity. It was elevated to this stature in Scripture, and by Our Savior, Jesus Christ, on the Cross after being pierced by St. Longinus’ lance—Sacred Blood and Water flowing from His Heart and out His afflicted side. St. John, the beloved disciple, understood the depths of this organ, which is why he was drawn to Our Lord’s chest and listened to the Gospel in every beat of It.

Yet it was not St. John who was first to hear the Gospel from the Sacred Heart. The God-bearer herself was chosen by the Father to be so. Not only that, but she is the only one in whom that Divinity was enfleshed and formed according to the natural order of gestation—a privilege afforded only to the one free from all sin. Through Mary, we see the Gospel written in true Flesh upon the book of Nature, thereby opening the gate through which Creation is wrested from satan and restored.

Truly, there is no argument which can be made against the significance of Our Lady’s role in Redemption, expressed by her Divine Motherhood; which is the blossom and first principle of the science of Mariology2. But between the theological, mystical, and poetic works penned in oceans of ink on papyrus, parchment, and paper—all of it beautiful and efficacious—there has been very little—to my knowledge—which has treated the biological facts of the Theotokos and her Child, and the mystical/theological conclusions and confirmations which would naturally result from such knowledge.

So seldom do we see studies of this kind that the only one treating biological concerns that comes to mind—which I still have yet to read (regrettably)—is Pierre Barbet’s A Doctor at Calvary, being a study of the Passion of Our Lord.

The closest I have found has been only as allusions to the biological reality of the Incarnation and Divine Maternity. In many of these instances we see the interconnectedness of Mary’s heart with her Son’s. We see it in Paris with St. Catherine Labouré’s Marian vision which birthed the Miraculous Medal. We see it again in the Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden in the heading quotation above, and elsewhere. Quoting Our Lady:

I stood very near to His cross and, as what is close to the heart is tortured more severely, in the same way, my sorrow was deeper than all the others… Therefore, I dare say that His suffering was my suffering because His heart was my heart. For as Adam and Eve sold the world for an apple, so my Son and myself: we redeemed the world as with one heart.3

The argument has been made, however, that this oneness of heart—this “Jesus living in Mary”—is merely mystical, or spiritual, in nature and does not also allude to an anatomical, or physiological, union. Dr. Robert Fastiggi implies such in his study of St. John Eudes, writing:

The deepest heart of Mary is Jesus himself. For Eudes, this is the most profound meaning of Jesus living in Mary. The bodily, spiritual, and divine hearts of Jesus form but a single heart. In a similar way, the bodily, spiritual, and divine hearts of Mary form a single heart. The difference, though, is that Mary’s heart is united to the heart of Jesus by a mystical and not a hypostatic union.4

For Fastiggi, I must call attention to his readiness to avoid now-known facts of biology in his study of Eudes which have distinct bearing on the question and degree of hypostasis. Though, this could be due to an arbitrary scope placed on himself. St. John Eudes would not have such knowledge in his time, so the benefit of the doubt goes to the saint—in Heaven now, he knows the full extent. I offer, therefore, the following words of Cyril Vollert in objection to Fastiggi’s aversion:

Mary’s maternity elevates her to the hypostatic order, in the sense that the hypostatic union between Christ’s assumed human nature and the Person of the Word was accomplished through her and in her; her Son is a divine Person.5

Vollert, nevertheless, expresses doubt as to the full theological consequences of the above. It may be the case that our full understanding will only occur through a glass darkly in this life—in fits and starts, bits and pieces—until all is revealed in the Beatific Vision. Thankfully, we are not without tangible signs that hint at the depths of the Redemption in this life. This is the raison d’être of the Book of Nature.

Microchimerism: a Chapter in the Liber Naturae

Here is where the rubber meets the road; where experience in healthcare unites with the Faith. This is where the Hermeneutic of the Holy Cross6 is of vital necessity:

The mystic depths expressed by the biological reality of the Incarnation and Divine Maternity centers around the existence of Microchimerism; it unlocks a whole new vantage from which to meditate on the mysteries of the Faith and how we live It.

The term derives its origin from the mythological creature of classical antiquity; an amalgam of the lion, goat, and serpent. Not the holiest of images, to be fair, but what the term describes is a natural phenomenon of holy origin: a mutual exchange of genetically distinct, and persistent, cellular material crossing the placenta and persisting in both mother and child.

In Genesis, after Adam has been given life and charge over Creation, he is put to sleep and God forms Eve as a help-mate from his rib. Upon waking, Adam rejoices and, filled with the Spirit, sings:

This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh.7

In ancient times, it was believed by some that Adam’s flesh was not yet true flesh, but still as if clay, which was used to explain how Eve was formed from Adam’s rib.8 For myself, I find this a pious opinion which is not without its fruitful symbolism, but lacks the fullness and grandeur of the miracle.

Cognizant of anatomical and physiological facts, we know that bone marrow produces stem cells, from which any possible cell is capable of forming. It is not without reason to surmise a miraculous multiplication of stem cells issuing from the center of the rib and thus giving shape to our first mother.

The question then arises: was her body genetically distinct from Adam’s? Whose to say? It would only ever be speculation, but we may see hints of what is likely the case contained in genetic phenomena.

We begin with the given that every child possesses, biologically, a combination of two distinct parental sources of DNA. The fetal cells which take root in the mother thus contain the unique genetic signature of the holy, nuptial act.

Next we consider the account of Cain and Abel’s birth in Scripture: that no suggestion of bodily impediment is described at their birth and during their life—where such is made explicit in other individuals elsewhere in Holy Writ. This could suggest that they were healthy and proportional boys, without indication of congenital defects associated with incestuous intercourse. Therefore, it would be within reason to believe that, despite being formed of Adam’s rib, Eve was truly, genetically distinct. And they would have to be, to such a primal degree, in order to propel Mankind into survivable multiplicity over the Earth and through Time unto our very present.

This distinctness of Eve could be said to have been miraculously bestowed upon her formation, as such rapid multiplication and adaptation of stem cells would be indicative of a wholly different genetic sequence not present in Adam (whose flesh was formed of clay, or mud).

The importance of individual distinction between persons continues into the New Testament at the Incarnation, where the Divine Maternity is firmly established. The Incarnation was solely different compared to the formation of Eve, demonstrated by the fact of Eve’s origin being absent of natural gestation. The Annunciation, however, has its own character which even distinguishes it from natural conception: there was no man with whom Mary had conceived by, nor to bestow paternal genetic material. Yet, Christ was a wholly distinct being at conception, according to even the dictates of natural law.

There are many typological and historical cataphases in Scripture, and here we are presented with one which bears grave import in salvation history. Indeed, it was prefigured in the protoevangelion of Genesis 3:15. At the Annunciation, we have the mirror of the Creation of Man: Adam→Eve; Mary→Jesus. In Christ, through Mary, we have the completion of the genealogical cataphasis.

If Eve was formed from Adam’s side, the mirror to it would be that Christ is formed from Mary. From this principle we can propose that if Eve’s unique genetic signature was miraculously given at her formation from Adam, then Christ’s was likewise, but from Mary. The veracity of the miracle at such a minute scale of biology is given to us by St. Gabriel himself in poetic answer to Mary’s question:

The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you;
therefore the child to be born will be called holy,
the Son of God.9

Truly, there is no scale within the Cosmos that God’s creative work cannot touch.

For with God nothing will be impossible.10

Despite its supernatural origins, Mary’s pregnancy was otherwise natural over the course of gestation. And while her deliverance was free from pains due to her total impeccability, Christ’s birth was nevertheless a natural one. His virtuous subjection to Nature extends even to the biological scale, no matter how minute.

Even to the statistical likelihood of exhibiting Microchimerism.

There are a wide array of estimates as to the prevalence of Microchimerism (or Mc) in both mothers and offspring—some being 50-75% for fetal Mc, 25-50% for maternal Mc. And the easiest way it can be studied is when the child is of the opposite sex to the mother. For more than 50 years, this phenomenon has been scrutinized by scientists, with a focus towards its implications on immunology and disease. In some aspects, it can be a blessing for both mother and child; in others, it is a bane. Of course, this is almost a given when considering Original Sin, but for the Incarnation and Divine Maternity there is no place for its consequences. It stands to reason, then, that Christ and Mary possessed only the benefits of it.

The extent of this phenomenon doesn’t simply end after birth. One study11 determined that maternal Mc was being transmitted even through breastfeeding. And so we can imagine, in the life of Our Lord, the times He continued to receive His Flesh from hers up until His weaning. And not only His Flesh, but—assuming Mc occurred between them—Mary’s flesh.

The objection can be made, whether Our Lord and Lady were of the global population of the ancient world which exhibited Microchimerism. After all, the estimates under current observation still leaves room for Mc not to occur at all. What of the 25-50% of women, and 0-25% of men, who do not possess Mc? How can we ever know that Christ and Mary represent an instance of it?

We see it hinted at providentially, when looking with the Καθολική θέα (trans. sight according to the whole), in the writings of pious churchmen, saints, and mystics.

In the French School and Beyond

The French School of Spirituality began in the mid-16th Century and went on to inform much of St. Eudes’ sentiments and theology on the subject of the two Hearts. In this spiritual school we find the expression of “Jesus living in Mary.” Quoting Jean-Jacques Olier’s famous prayer:

O Jesus, living in Mary, come and live in me… in the communion of your divine mysteries…

In Pierre de Bérulle we have a more direct reference to the biological reality of the Incarnation:

He is in her as a son is in his mother, drawing his life from her. He is in her as her son and her God, giving life to her as she receives life. He is in her as his earthly paradise.12

We can also look again at the emblem of the SSPX (see above), which owes its inspiration from the French School. That Mc has been observed in heart tissue of both mothers and children, the unwitting implication of this by the emblem is difficult to ignore.

Gerald van Ackeren writes concerning the fact of the Divine Maternity:

No woman can be said to be a mother in the proper sense of the word unless she has generated a child. Generation requires, first of all, that the offspring be a living subsistent being… Second, generation requires that the offspring be of the same nature as the parent… Third, part of the very substance of the parent must pass into the substance of the child, so that the child is really from the substance of the parent… Fourth, the child must originate from that part of the parent which has the specific design and function of bringing about the same kind of nature in the offspring.13

The “substance of the parent” is a reference to the biology at work in the gestation of the fetus. Given that the intimacy between Christ and His Mother is attested to by nigh two millennia of faithful in every strata of office and holiness, it would be an offense against the abundance of love and grace present in the Madonna and Child to deny that the “substance” does not include Fetal, or Maternal Mc cells.

Where love abounds the most it has its maximal expression.

In the Mystics and Saints

Here, we will repeat the heading quotation from St Bridget of Sweden from the beginning of this piece. I find it to be a strong, providential expression lending credit to Mc:

Therefore when [He] was born from me, I felt as if it was half my heart was born and went out of me … so I, when my Son was scourged and pricked, [it was] as if my heart were scourged and pricked.14

St. Ildephonsus of Toledo wrote many tracts dedicated to the Blessed Virgin and the Incarnation. In one of his prayers, he uses clear and concise language to describe the natural gestation of Our Lord:

Only the Person of the Son of God is to be born in your body, and He alone will take flesh from you.15

St. Alphonsus Liguori, my patron, is easily one of the great Marian Maximalists of the Church, along with St. Louis de Montfort, St. Maximilian Kolbe, and others. With them, Liguori spent much ink treating of the Incarnation and the Blessed Virgin. In his Glories of Mary, speaking on the Annunciation, he provides a passage that can easily and powerfully apply to the likelihood of Microchimerism between Madonna and Child:

And as children are, morally speaking, considered one with their parents, so that their properties and honors are in common, it follows, says Saint Peter Damian, that God who dwells in creatures in different ways dwelt in Mary in a special way, and was singularly identified with her, making Himself one and the same thing with her.16

Even if Liguori begins the passage placing it within a moral framework, it is not without reason to suspect that—in the chain of being, cause, and effect—moral realities have providential expressions in Nature.

In a manuscript attributed to St. Bernard of Clairvaux, he has a dialogue with the Blessed Virgin concerning the Passion of Christ from her perspective. Mary describes to him what was going through her mind and the prayer of the heart she rendered. In it, I argue, is an allusion to Mc. Praying to her Son:

Have pity upon me, and draw me to Yourself on this infernal gallows so that we may die as one flesh, even as we shared one heart and one love!17

The mystic and stigmatist, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, recounted the scene where Our Lady beheld the moment her Son dies, going limp on the Cross. After feinting, she revives and Emmerich relates details which can be seen as pertinent to our theme:

… she beheld the Sacred Body of her Son, whom she had conceived by the Holy Ghost, the flesh of her flesh, the bone of her bone, the heart of her heart, the holy vessel formed by the divine overshadowing of her own blessed womb…18

Probably the most explicit account detailing the formation of Our Lord’s Flesh from Mary in comes to us from Venerable Mary of Agreda’s Mystical City of God.

… the most holy body of Christ our Lord was formed from the three drops of blood furnished by the heart of most holy Mary.19

Biology dictates that the fetus’ blood is distinct from the mother’s during pregnancy, possibly only mixing during childbirth—this is without considering Microchimerism. Predominantly, only nutrients and oxygen are shared across the placenta. While Christ was gestating in Mary’s womb He would have been subject to these facts by virtue of His humility and the requirements of His mission. It is, therefore, impossible for Mary of Agreda to be speaking literally. Rather, we should view her in light of it being a deployment of beautiful symbolism.

Blood, Life, and Interpreting Mary of Agreda

Valentin Tomberg writes of how blood has been used in many cultures to symbolize ζωή (zoê). He describes this as the qualitative (vertical) vitality of Life—the compliment to βίος, which is the quantitative, generative (horizontal) aspect of Life.2021 While zoê is used in the second creation account22, another word which Holy Writ makes use of in the Greek is ψυχὴ (psyche; trans. soul, life, the animating principle of a human). It has its origins tied up with the notion of “breath”, or “to breathe”; which we see in the above-mentioned passage:

καὶ ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς· καὶ ἐνεφύσησεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωῆς, καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν.
Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.23

The supernatural link between blood and life is made clear in several other Scriptural passages:

πλὴν κρέας ἐν αἵματι ψυχῆς οὐ φάγεσθε
Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.24

ἡ γὰρ ψυχὴ πάσης σαρκὸς αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἐστιν, καὶ ἐγὼ δέδωκα αὐτὸ ὑμῖν ἐπὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου ἑ περὶ τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν· τὸ γὰρ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἀντὶ τῆς λάσεται.
For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.25

Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch, speaking on the above, say:

In the Bible, blood is a sacred substance because it bears within it the life of the creature… [it] flows with life—a gift that comes from God and belongs to God.26

In the biosphere, blood acts as a carrier. This plays well with Mary of Agreda’s symbolism in using it to describe the formation of Christ’s human body: Mary’s blood carries her life over as a gift of life to Christ, generating His human Flesh—even if it is not in accordance with observed phenomena. Emmerich’s invocation of Genesis 2:23 (“the bone of her bone”) also feeds into this imagery, as we now know that blood cells are generated in bone marrow—which also happens to be a part of the body where Microchimerism has been observed.27

Mary’s heart as the place from which the three drops of generating blood originated from is situated firmly in Mary of Agreda’s symbolic ποίησῐς (poiesis), rather than in biology. Poetically, the word heart is polyvalent. In this instance, it represents the core of a person, the place where the Divine interacts with us, and is where the depth of our natural and spiritual life is concentrated. The heart can also refer to that which informs the substance and nature of us, which could biologically be said to be recorded in our DNA.

Unlike in the case of Eve being formed of Adam’s rib, which miraculously occurred outside of any womb—thus Eve had not gestated, and is considered not to have been born—Christ was miraculously conceived within a womb, was born, and, therefore, subject to gestation and all that is biologically required for such. What Mary of Agreda illustrates for us mystically, the Liber Naturae expresses biologically through the X chromosomes marvelously present in Christ’s Flesh.

If the intimacy between Madonna and Child is as profound and certain as expressed by the above saints and mystics—and others elsewhere in plethora—and with the corresponding, biologically certain expressions of it thus demonstrated—at even the most minuscule scale of Nature—then what justification is there to deny Our Lord and Lady exhibited Microchimerism?

I offer to you, dear Unknown Friends: there is none which does not risk violence to the love between the King and Queen of Heaven and Earth.

Consequences of Microchimerism

To treat all the possible ramifications Microchimerism has on the teachings of the Catholic Church would require more space than what is possible here in this piece. Instead, I will offer just a sampling of what this biological reality has to offer towards the depth and understanding of our Faith. I can think of no better place than the Crucifixion.

We Catholics know the myriad facts of the Passion of Our Lord; the Agony, Scourging, Crowning, Carrying; the nailing, raising, piercing. We meditate on them every Tuesday and Friday in recitation of the the Most Holy Rosary. We remind ourselves, through our Liturgy, of Christ’s assurances that He is True Flesh and True Blood; that He is True Man. He was more Man than we. If His claims are to be believed—and they most certainly are—then in Him would be the perfect instances of all healthy, biological phenomena, including Microchimerism.

Mc has been observed in individuals between 9 and 49 years of age.28 Both Our Lord and Lady, at the time of the Crucifixion, would have been within this age range; 33 and 46-49 years of age, respectively. The implication here is that while our redemption was being wrought upon the Cross, the distinct flesh of Mary composed a portion of the Flesh of the Lamb; and the Flesh of the Lamb composed a portion of Our Lady’s. When He expired, a portion of Mary did. When His Heart was pierced, hers was as well. When His Blood flowed upon Golgotha, Mary’s did as well. This extends even to His burial and Resurrection.

In the Mc between Christ and Mary we have a biological confirmation of the intimate, inseparable union between them, spoken of by the saints, mystics, and churchmen above and elsewhere. It also verifies, without question, Our Lady’s coredemption, now impossible to reject by even the staunchest of Rahnerians.

Applying this to the Eucharist is a subject of current, personal meditation, especially at Mass. While I cannot yet offer any concrete commentary about such a treasury, I can offer only the warmest encouragement to you all to join me.

Conclusion

This piece only represents the surface of what Microchimerism has to offer the Faith. It is my prayer that more will take up contemplation of it and to help find the other providential allusions amongst the writings of more saints. From here, I hope the depths are plunged ever deeper; that as we go further into the mystery of the Incarnation we come closer and closer to Our Lord and Lady.

It is unfortunate, in the post-conciliar and synodal Church, that some of these repercussions of Microchimerism would likely be outright rejected—Mater Populi Fidelis being an indication. This, too, shall pass, God be praised; and the Church will one day come to value this treasury. And in that day, the spirituality of the faithful will be all the more luminous, burning with the Spirit of the Lord.

Pax Christi,
IA.

Share

The Sophiurgist is a reader-supported publication. You can support this work through a paid subscription. For just $5 per month, $50 per year, you can help keep the lights on. You can also support by Buying Me a Coffee. For those who would like to become substantial patrons, you can join the Societas Sophiurgica (the founder’s tier).

Read more

Read more

Read more

And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat. — Genesis 3:6 DRB

Dear Unknown Friends,

Here we continue with our exploration of the fundamentals of Sophiurgy. You can catch up by reading Part 1 in the link below.

In our last installment, we concerned ourselves with establishing the necessary hermeneutic to be held during the course of this discussion: that of the Cross. (I would also take note here that this is also something that we must hold before us every day of our lives and during our practice as Catholic Cunning-men). We also observed the broadest sense of how Valentin Tomberg defined magic (“the sublimation of man” per Péladan) and expanded upon what this means within the hermeneutic of the Cross and in fidelity to Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Lastly, we began to distinguish between Tomberg’s Péladanian definition and his own, secondary and distinct, definition which shares a common structure to that held by Aleister Crowley.

The 3 Categories and Their Relative Risk

Here for review we have the Estonian laying out three categories of magic, as cited before.

The first (sacred magic) and third (sorcery) each describe the practitioner as being an instrument through which effects are manifested. The middle (personal magic) describes the practitioner as being the source from which its effects are made manifest. In the first and third, the practitioner is in obedience to something outside of himself which accomplishes its end through him—he becomes its instrument. In the case of the middle, the practitioner turns what is outside himself into his instrument.

Regarding the relationship between sacred and personal/arbitrary magic, Tomberg is keen to warn us:

The “formidable dangers” of arbitrary or personal magic have been described by all those who have had direct or indirect experience of this. Henry Cornelius Agrippa (De Occulta Philosopbia, vol. iii), Eliphas Levi (Transcendental Magic: Its Doctrine and Ritual) and Papus have said sufficient to prove that arbitrary or personal magic is most dangerous.1

But concerning sacred magic he writes:

For sacred or divine magic, one risks only that it is inoperative, because of an error—which can be distressing—but it comprises no danger.2

From the above we can infer that with each step through the categories (sacred→personal→sorcery) there is a successive increase in risk. If sacred magic posses “no danger”, then it stands to reason that sorcery “is a danger” without question. Personal magic sits in a median position: it is “dangerous”. This meaning that a state of “potential danger” exists. This state of potentia means that the practitioner would be solely responsible for positioning themselves in either actuality of safety or danger via his use of Free Will. This is where the curse from eating the Fruit of Knowledge and the knowledge it provides becomes readily apparent.3 It is possible for our arbitrary will to coincide with the Divine Will, just as it is possible for it to coincide with unconscious or elemental forces—the former being “safe”; the latter being “a danger”.

This is not meant as a defense, or exhortation, for the practice of personal/arbitrary magic “arbitrarily” and without discernment. It is merely to be a plain and fair observation of natural conclusions when considering magic as categorized by the Estonian. From such, is there a means made available with which to restore—to baptize; to sublimate—practices in Christ—as we are all admonished to do so to all things?

The Sublimation of Praxis?

An open question, that particularly concerns the Catholic Cunning-man, is whether such prudent curation of personal magical practices renders them into sacred magic; thus ceasing to be personal magic. Another being whether such curation is even possible.

Beneath the shadow of such questions, the following principle must be maintained:

… that you love the Lord your God, and serve Him with all your heart, and with all your soul.4

To be a Catholic Cunning-man (a.k.a. Sophiurgist) necessarily requires that the practitioner be Catholic—one who conducts themselves according to the whole. Meaning, he must be grafted onto the living vine; a member of Christ’s Mystical Body. He must be someone in the honest, active, and humble climb to holiness—someone undergoing the sublimation of man by faithful exposure to sacramental graces and the vital ascetic disciplines appropriate for one’s state in life—all of which being in obedience to God. This must be maintained without falling to the temptation to render this baseline as some form of technique, or as a tool. It must be approached as relational: love the Lord your God.

With the above established, it is possible to proceed investigating the question by invoking St. Paul:

That He might make known unto us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure, which He hath purposed in Him, in the dispensation of the fullness of times, to re-establish all things in Christ, that are in heaven and on earth, in Him.5

And also by St. Pope Pius X’s rendering of Paul’s teaching into an admonition for himself, and which we can take on as our motto in each of our own practices:

Instaurare omnia in Christo.
To restore all things in Christ.

By invoking the Pauline-Piusian sentiment, we establish for ourselves the whole mission of, and the frame from which, a curation of the personally magical ought to be oriented and conducted: in a making known of His Will towards the end of the restoration of it in Christ. To the extent that such curation remains disposed in this way, that which is confirmed through faithful discernment, and obedience to Divine Will, would necessarily result in the realization of a personal praxis into sacred magic.

We are not without instances of such being attempted and demonstrated. We can look to the alchemical writings of Jean de Rupescissa, wherein he orients the art towards the good health of his fellow Christians and describes the stages of the Great Work in correspondence to the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Our Lord.6 And there are other instances with respect to the prudent discernment made by St. Albert the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas concerning the practices of natal, medicinal, mundane and electional astrology—also amulet-making. And in St. Hildegard von Bingen’s Physica, which presents many remedies that have much in common with charms and yet-unexplainably efficacious practices—as demonstrated by an entry treating the use of agate:

Also, every night before a person goes to bed, he should carry a clearly visible agate through the length and then the width of the house, in the pattern of a cross. Thieves are then less able to exercise their wills and so profit less in thievery.7

Share The Sophíurgist

Reception versus Seizure

One way by which such discernment is conducted is by questioning the modus operandi of the magic under scrutiny. In the simplest terms, the question is posed between the dichotomy of whether one receives, or takes; between reception, or seizure. The first mode implies a relationship wherein a gift is bestowed, or granted. The second bears no principle of relationship and implies that one obtains possession by their own means.

In relation to Tomberg’s categories, the principle of reception is the mode in which both sacred magic and sorcery are conducted. Seizure is the mode in which the baseline of arbitrary magic operates.

Pure reception within the zone of safety (see Figure 2 above) has its exemplar in The Annunciation and Pentecost. In the zone of danger it is demonic possession, or something as commonplace as purchasing something from a link you clicked on your social media news feed. The instance of Eve taking the Forbidden Fruit falls under speculation as to whether it is pure seizure in the zone of danger, or seizure in absolute neutrality. My tendency is to assume complete danger, since one places themselves in danger upon disobedience to God’s Will.

Revisiting the subject of instauration, another question now presents itself in light of the above dichotomy: Whether arbitrary praxis can operate in the mode of reception.

How to Eat from the Arbor Vitae

Before answering such a question, please allow a moment of contextualization, citing Tomberg in his further discussion on sacred magic’s modus. It is seen in his meditation on the role the Cherub of the Flaming Sword at the East of Eden fulfills which precisely has to do with the issue of reception versus seizure.

… it is a matter here of defense against putting forth the hand and taking from the Tree of Life, and it is this and only this that the flaming sword at the garden of Eden prevents.8

And:

"Putting forth the hand and taking" [Genesis 3:22]—this is the motif, the method and the ideal of science. It is the will-to-power underlying the scientific attitude which is prevented by the flaming sword of the Guardian of Eden from repeating the act committed with respect to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.9

It is implied in this passage that the ideal of science is congruent, if not conjunct, with arbitrary magic. Tomberg demonstrates this by invoking Papus:

Ceremonial magic [i.e. arbitrary magic] is of an order absolutely identical to our industrial science.10

Here we see Tomberg describing the mode in which Eve ate of the Forbidden Fruit as being that of seizure—as we had surmised above. It is against this that the Cherub is given his mission: to protect the Tree of Life from being seized upon (Gen. 3:22).

With all this expounded, how then does one eat of the Tree of Life if one is prevented from taking of Its fruit as one would from one’s mundane orchard? The Estonian explains:

Instead of putting forward the hand to take, the human being opens his mind, his heart and his will to receive that which will be graciously bestowed upon him.11

To riff upon Tomberg’s meditations here, consider our Parents in their prelapsarian state, before even having been tempted. It stands to reason they would have been sustaining themselves from the Tree of Life in addition to everything else green that was given them. Since they would not, as yet, know how to seize, they would have only understood reception. To do so, they would have known the seasons of all that grew within the Garden. They would know when the fruits thereof would be ripe and when not. So attuned would their understanding and intuition of Nature be that they could place themselves in the exact place and time for the fruit to descend into their open hands and be good to eat. No need for search, or for toil. This mode of reception preserved the aspect of relationship with God. It is in the mode of seizure where the relationship is tarnished.

Returning to the question we diverged from—whether there is an arbitrary praxis in the mode of reception—comes another of such import that we cannot further our exploration without treating it.

What is the end proper to magic?

[To be continued…]

This publication is reader-supported. While a monthly/annual membership provides the most value to readers, I know not everyone is able to commit in this way. If you still want to support my work, you can send tips through Buy Me a Coffee with the button below.

Tip Jar

If you want to become a major patron to ensure this work can continue, consider joining, or upgrading your subscription to, the Societas Sophiurgica. Doing so helps offset the cost of research materials and provides you with personal hand/typewritten correspondence about the subjects discussed at The Sophiurgist.

A big thank you to all my subscribers and readers!

Pax Christi,
IA

This wasn’t the essay I had hoped would grace the archive of The Sophiurgist in 2026. Rather, I had an altogether lengthier, loftier, and meditative affair lined up as the inaugural piece. Providence, however, is my master. Were I to refuse It lies the self-making of a fool.

It was the early start of January when I was reminded of th…

Read more

Dear Unknown Friends,

Today is a happy day! I have made the first official step towards taking my publication all that more seriously. I have registered my pen name “Ignotus Amicus” with my local State Corporation Commission. Meaning: I can now officially conduct business under this pen name.

I have mentioned in many instances, in my livestreams on YT, how I have been discerning the extent to which I wish to monetize the content published here. I maintain that the written/readable content will remain FREE and accessible to any who visit or subscribe to The Sophiurgist. Audio versions of essays and articles will be available to paid subscribers.

With financial demands increasing, this is not something I have chosen to do lightly. Truly, I know these subjects are too important to sequester behind a paywall, as I know I am not the only person who cannot afford to subscribe to every publication touching upon these similar subjects.

I pray that you will consider becoming a patron of this venture, to help ensure that I can continue the fruitful study of the Catholic Faith and exploration of what it means to be a Sophiurgist, or Catholic Cunning-man. Your contribution will go a long way to sustaining this effort and ensuring the fruits thereof may continue.

Please consider partaking of the poll below to help me provide other iterations of this content which you would find valuable:

May God bless you all, and Our Lady the Mediatrix of all Graces, keep you.

IA

Dear Unknown Friends,

During Feb 11th’s Livestream over on YouTube, I presented an update to an older video I had done. This came about due to personal maturation, prayer, and discernment after further reading and meditation. Looking back, I can see my previous recommendations were youthful and brash and desperately in need of revision.

You can watch the VOD here.

I recently received a comment from a viewer who asked if I could write out the list from the video. I figured it would be of benefit having the list here at The Sophiurgist.

As a primer, it ought to be noted, that we should already have at our disposal a copy of Holy Scripture and one, or more, Prayer Books (such as any from Father Lassance).

Without further ado, here it is…

Subscribe now

Meditations on the Tarot by Anonymous (Valentin Tomberg)

The writer/commentator Roger Buck over at has said in many of his posts and videos that Tomberg’s magnum opus is “a thousand books in one”. In my encounter with the Estonian, I can only echo this sentiment. In some passages it may seem he is veering off on a tangent, only to tie it in at a later passage. It is hardly a systematic book, as the title suggests. Having an air of the conversational to it, the book lends a friendly and tender pedagogy.

For the aspiring Sophiurgist, there are hints of the fundamentals of our praxis scattered throughout. Investigating what it is seems almost like an initiation. For some it is daunting, but has done the Lord’s work in re-articulating these fundamentals in his lectures on YouTube, making the practice of Concentration Without Effort accessible.

Then there is Tomberg’s contribution towards defining Sacred Magic, and all that entails—which is also of particular interest to us. And elsewhere throughout the tome are his warnings of where the borders lie between Sacred Magic, Personal Magic, and Sorcery. The knowledge of and ability to identify these categories should be the Catholic Cunning-man’s bread and butter.

Be wary, friends! there are some pitfalls in this book one must be careful of. Namely, Tomberg’s tendency towards Chardinism and his comments on Reincarnation. However, if we keep our wits about us, and our mind refreshed with Scripture and Tradition, these trip ups can be avoided.

Lazarus: The Miracle of Resurrection in World History by Valentin Tomberg

If one has finished Meditations on the Tarot, then this is almost certainly a required follow up. I would call this book a demonstration of the Law of Analogy/Correspondence the Estonian mentions in the former. It contains a fruitful meditation on the cataphatic pattern which exists between the Seven Days of Creation and the seven miracles of St John’s Gospel.

I would also assert that each of the miracles, in relation to the Days of creation, lay out the fundamental method of any sophiurgical operation—and to stray from this pattern would render one’s magic as either Personal (2nd category) or Sorcery (3rd category).

Wariness is, again, warranted here. Tomberg delves into his thoughts on Reincarnation. While I find his argument unique among those who have purported it, I still struggle to truly parse out his meaning—whether he is expressing something true of the Faith, but in a lexicon and a semantic topography that is not at all common for Catholics. Otherwise, there is much fruit to be had in this follow-up to Meditations.

A Metaphysics of the Christian Mystery: An Introduction to the Work of Jean Borella by Bruno Berard

With the inklings one hopefully has gleaned concerning Catholic esotericism —as the symbiotic compliment to the Church’s exotericism—from reading Meditations on the Tarot and Lazarus, Berard’s introduction to Jean Borella’s metaphysics is a natural next read. My hope with this recommendation is that it will help to gain a better grasp on some of Tomberg’s themes concerning the mystical, gnostic, and magical senses. There are some instances of a shared lexicon with some slight departures, or differences, in semantics of other words—all attempting to describe the place where the Law of Correspondence resides and where the sophiurgist operates.

You can see by book review of it by clicking here.

The Magic of Catholicism: Real Magic for Devout Catholics by Brother ADA (Agostino Taumaturgo)

I have mentioned a few times on my Channel how this book and Meditations on the Tarot helped to bring me back to the Church. For this I will be ever grateful to Taumaturgo and his effort here.

Don’t let the title fool you, Unknown Friends. This one is a Catholic Catechism in disguise. The author provides his interpretation of a definition of the word magic: Applied theology. By this schema it stands to reason: if Catholicism has the true theology then the Church’s application of said theology would be the true magic. I would imagine Tomberg would agree.

This book presents concise reviews of Sacramental Theology, Angelology, the use of sacramentals, ecclesiology concerning who has jurisdiction to bless whom and what… very handy for answering quick questions not usually covered by other catechisms that would serve the Catholic Cunning-man.

There is a slight diversion in the appendices where Taumaturgo presents an attempt at a Christianization of the Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram from the Golden Dawn. The attempt, in my opinion, has some form of merit. However, a recitation of the Breastplate of St. Patrick achieves the same ends, if not more effectively and within orthopraxis.

Trithemius and Magical Theology by Noel L. Brann

Despite its more agnostic/atheistic frame of academics, Brann’s treatment of this subject is very poignant for the sophiurgist. While I have not yet been able to locate scans or transcriptions of Trithemius’ letters to Ganay, the passages of them that are presented here are pertinent to our field of study and practice.

I have found much of Trithemius’ position on the subject of magic to fall in parity with Tomberg’s and Taumaturgo’s—even though in the manuscripts attributed to the Benedictine Abbot he skirts to edge of what would be Personal Magic.

The Gospel in the Stars by Joseph A. Seiss

Admittedly, this author is NOT Catholic. He was an Episcopalian. Yet I urge you, Unknown Friends, to still flip through this one. There are enough good fruits to be had, so long as we keep our vision united to Christ. Perhaps myself, or another, may attempt a more Catholic interpretation of the heavens, prompted by Seiss’ commentary.

I recommend this one, nevertheless, for the purposes of finding new, Christian context to the meaning of the constellations and planets since Our Lord’s salvific Crucifixion—and to apply such to our reading the inclinations of the stars (admitted to exist by St. Thomas Aquinas). Ideal for the sophiurgist in the midst of studying the licit astrology practiced by the Angelic Doctor, his mentor Albert the Great, and many of our medieval Saints who practiced holistic medicinal arts.

Physica by St. Hildegard von Bingen

Keeping with the theme of traditional, holistic medicine: Hildegard’s Physica is a must-have for the Catholic Cunning-man!

One of my personal favorites whenever I hear negative-supersticious Catholics spouting nonsense such as “crystal healing is demonic, New Age hokum.” If a Doctor of the Church catalogues healing remedies by use of precious stones, I find it difficult to consider crystal healing to be New Age, or hokum. She even argues it is impossible for them to be used by demons. So there’s that.

Combining reading this with her Scivias would be recommended, as her natural theology in the Physica is derived from the visions she was graced with by Heaven.

The Red Church: or the Art of Pennsylvania German Braucherei by C. R. Bilardi

With this recommendation we bring the last few reads full circle. Here, Bilardi does a decent job of compiling the history, theory, and practice of the folk healing tradition from my family’s ancestral motherland. As an aside, I sadly have not been able to ask of my grandfather if his mother ever had a copy of Long-lost Friend in their kitchen. It seems I have to await the next life to find out, since I did not learn of this tradition until after his passing.

The important aspect of this book for us is as an illustration of the way Christians have attempted to sublimate what pagans had learned and practiced, so as to elevate them and render them restored in Christ. That being said, there are plenty of remedies listed featuring verbal “charms” that are dubious in their orthopraxis and warrant our avoidance.

Three Books of Occult Philosophy by H. C. Agrippa

Is this one out of left field? I would argue not so! What Agrippa accomplished with this feat is something few have accomplished. Often mistaken to be a grimoire, his Three Books of Occult Philosophy exists more as a compendium of varied knowledge pertaining to the virtues of the Natural World and their recorded uses, the virtues of the stars and planets and the extent of their inclination upon Earth, and the contact with the divine order as recorded by various writers from ancient times through to Agrippa’s day—both pagan and Catholic.

The 3-volume edition from Inner Traditions is the only version I would recommend. Eric Purdue, though he is not Catholic himself, has done the original 1533 Latin edition the justice of keeping biases at bay. The text is footnoted all throughout with citations from source material Agrippa had nigh photographic memory of. Sources include, but are not limited to, St. Albert the Great, Plato, Aristotle, Francesco Giorgi (a Franciscan), and many Latin Classics. Admittedly, there are many references to various traditions among Judaism—many that are difficult to trace back to King Solomon, or other second-temple period practices.

With holy wit and wherewithal by grace, and for those who find themselves well-guarded against the temptation to fall into big-”O” Occultism (aka Personal Magic and/or Sorcery), this edition is the starting place to distill those sourcebooks and texts which are agreeable with Tomberg’s Sacred Magic, and thus with the Catholic Cunning-man.

The Arbatel: Concerning the Magic of the Ancients translated by Joseph H. Peterson

The purpose of including this work in the list is to provide material for comparative study. There are many passages and aphorisms in the Arbatel that have a likeness, or match, with passages from Tomberg concerning the subject of magic.

Like Tomberg, the unknown author here attempts a categorization of magic in order to distinguish between a licit and illicit science. However, the Arbatel is an incomplete work, being only the introduction to a, proposed, much larger work.

Though it is not suggested by Peterson, I have a suspicion that the original manuscript was given additions, acquiring elements of a grimoire concerning descriptions and aspects of “Olympic Spirits”. I allege that there may have been an earlier edition of it where these unknown spirits were not included. My reason for this is after reading many aphorisms that seem to contradict the permissiveness of the traffic of such spirits and the categorization of the differing types of magic. But all this is for a future piece.

Share

Thank you for reading this far, Unknown Friends.

If you found value and good fruit from the content here at The Sophiurgist, please consider subscribing and sharing this work.

For all who have already subscribed, I thank you all and pray for you. Please keep me in your prayers as well.

Until next time.

Pax Christi,

IA

And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.
Luke 1:41 DRB

Dear Unknown Friends,

Since I began my YouTube channel, I have increasingly been prompted during prayer to begin writing on the topics I discuss regularly. While this is not my first piece here, it is a vitally important one. It attempts to bring together all my disparate thoughts on the matter of the praxis of living the Liturgically Real life1. A pivotal articulation of the thaumaturgical consequences of this practice is given to us by the controversial Estonian writer, Valentin Tomberg. He refers to it, devoid of scruples, as Sacred Magic.

The word magic has yet to obtain a univocal meaning. Despite this, it is understandable that a word such as magic evokes a negative superstition in the minds of everyday, pious Catholics. Just as writers such as Ross Arlen Tieken, Javier Velazquez, and Justi Andrassen have sought to re-articulate—for the better—the concept of “re-enchantment”, I have sought—throughout the course of my videos—for a new articulation with which to refer to Tomberg’s Sacred Magic: Sophiurgy (so-PHI-ur-gy). The namesake of this publication.

In this series of essays is explored, as best I can muster, what Sophiurgy is; along with a stab at defining it more succinctly and enumerating many of its methods and modes.

Hermeneutic of the Holy Cross

The best place I can think to begin is with what lens we ought to hold before us. This key is paramount, or principal, to our venture. It must be in front of us as we proceed, otherwise—as our forebears often remark—we can go astray. It is the Cross we must keep front and center; as it was—and remains—the topos at the center of all space and time. All that came before and all that has come after is referent to, revolves around, the place and moment of our redemption.

The Crucifixion of Our Lord is central to the understanding and efficacy of Sophiurgy. Without Christ’s sacrifice, without Redemption, anything we could hope to do would be for naught in the sophiurgist’s endeavor. Yet there is an ever consistent and essential context which the Cross provides: It is the divine pattern expressing the rubrics from which all Creation and art becomes the instrument of Providence. Without this understanding, the labor of any Christian soul is rendered illicit and possibly invalid.

There are numerous Saints and authors who have penned, with much ink, the necessity of the Cross. In this treatment, we are considerate of the unique employment of the geometrical figure of the Cross as used by Valentin Tomberg in his posthumous Medications on the Tarot. Throughout the work, the Estonian invokes the Cross as both a symbol of the vow of obedience2 as well as a hermeneutic as mentioned above3. Given the frequency with which he uses it, and the variation of principles and concepts that occupy the vertices throughout, the ubiquity and universality of the Cross as a vital hermeneutic is undeniable. I have rendered it as above in Figure 1. I will be referring to this figure at various places throughout the publication.

I must stress out-the-gate that I do not share in Tomberg’s embrace of the Hegelian dialectic. Some of his exegeses of the Cross as hermeneutic do betray a circumstantial affinity with that (and other) part(s) of Modernism4 and Chardinism5—in the same way that Flannery O’Connor and other lay Catholic writers of the time were enchanted by aspects of these heresies. Catholicism is not, and has never been, a religion which posits synthesis between Truth and untruth. It is one that lives and expresses the union of complementary particulars with and in God.

For the purpose of this series, Unknown Friends, we understand the vertices of the Cross not as “thesis and antithesis”, but as verticality and its complimentary: horizontality. Wedded together in matrimony, a and b give birth to c. This is contrary to what would be seen if we saw thesis and antithesis attempt procreation: -a and a birth nothing. The alchemists’ “marriage of opposites” is a mistaken semantic.

Where the marriage expressed by these two vertices is consummated is the place where Sacred Magic, or Sophiurgy, is born.

The Sublimation of Man

In Letter III of Meditations, Tomberg begins commentary on the subject and definition of magic. He is not the first to make such an attempt; many have tried before him. By his estimation, Joséphin Péladan had it best, writing:

[He] defined magic as “the art of sublimation of man”; no other formula is superior to his. This is exactly the emblem—or aim—of magic, if one understands by “sublimation of man” that of human nature.6

My read of this is that Tomberg equates “Man” with “human nature”.

For the Christian, and aspiring sophiurgist, our nature is received from God and thus it is principally good; a unity of a Soul (a.) with a Body (b.) begetting our personhood (c.). Yet by our first parents’ transgression in the Garden we have inherited the stain of Original Sin. And because of this we required Redemption, established by the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary.

Through His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church the sanctifying graces purchased for us by His sacrifice are dispensed and available to us. Bringing to mind Figure 1, the seven Catholic Sacraments serve as infallible rites where a and b always conjunct and give birth to c.

The next question is what is meant by sublimation.

In Alchemy, sublimation is the process where a solid passes into vapor, skipping the liquid phase of matter. We are not merely concerned with a textbook definition here; in Tomberg, as with Alchemy, the literal is not alone. There is always the spiritual compliment—the a (spiritual) to compliment the b (literal), together spawning c (understanding/embodiment).

The material which is sublimated undergoes a purification—which is hinted at in the etymology of the word: sublimare, Latin meaning “to lift up”; and sublimis, Latin meaning “lofty, high, exalted”. It suggests an elevation—the blossoming of those virtues present which express the principle, transcendent bona natura of the subject in question.

The prime example of this is Our Lady’s Assumption, but there are others in the saints who were seen to have levitated, flown, or been transported. The means by which they merited such graces lies in their clinging to the Sacraments, particularly the Eucharist.

Thus it can be concluded that visiting and partaking of the Sacraments is the principle, vital exercise begetting the sublimation of man. They are the rites by which the Divine (a) and the congregation (b) conjunct and commune (c). It is the ultimate magic—it is publicly liturgical and personally theurgical. Without this contact—without this subjection and obedience to right worship as it was divinely prescribed and organically fostered—Sophiurgy is impossible.

This theme is variously iterated on throughout Tomberg’s Meditations and he begins doing so in Letter III on The Empress where he attempts a categorization of magic. Such categorization bears similarity to that found in the Arbatel7

Now, there are three kinds of magic: magic where the magician is the instrument of divine power—this is sacred magic; magic where the magician himself is the source of the magical operation—this is personal magic; lastly, magic where the magician is the instrument of elemental forces or other unconscious forces—this is sorcery.8

What I find interesting here is the difference between what Tomberg describes compared to his quotation of Péladan’s a few pages later. I wager that what Tomberg is speaking of above is of a related, but lower category than that of Péladan; evidenced by the inclusion of the latter two categories.

The above quotation from Letter III has more in common with another definition, which Tomberg seems to never provide a citation of, but which ought to be recognizable to those readers who are at all familiar with esoterica and the Occult of the 19th and early 20th Centuries: Aleister Crowley’s.

[Magic] is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.9

It seems Tomberg’s concern in the beginning of this Letter is to start by treating of a more personal concern than of the broader and loftier one of Péladan10. The concern being that of one’s will, as it is with Crowley. Arguments about what Crowley means by his capitalization of “Will” is not pertinent in this discussion, as it is not pertinent, of necessity, for Tomberg.

Share The Sophíurgist

We will take up a further exploration of how Tomberg defines Sacred Magic—and thus how we will define Sophiurgy—in the next part.

Until next time, Unknown Friends.

Pax Christi.

IA

Leave a comment

5

Chardinism is the theology and philosophy of Teilhard de Chardin, whose writings were condemned by the Holy Office in 1962.

The above is a photocopy of the Admonition from the Holy Office. It reads:

Several works of Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, some of which were published posthumously, are being edited and receiving considerable support.

Refraining from a judgment in that which concerns the positive sciences, it is quite evident that in philosophical and theological matters the mentioned works are filled with ambiguities and even serious errors that offend Catholic doctrine.

For this reason, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Fathers of the Supreme and Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as the Superiors of Religious Institutes, Rectors of Seminaries and Directors of Universities, to protect minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers of the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and his associates.

Dear Unknown Friends,

This wasn’t the essay I had hoped would grace the archive of The Sophiurgist in 2026. Rather, I had an altogether lengthier, loftier, and meditative affair lined up as the inaugural piece. Providence, however, is my master. Were I to refuse It lies the self-making of a fool.

It was the early start of January when I was reminded of the good Oxford Don’s birthday. J.R.R. Tolkien: 134 years since birth. 53 years since his departure from the Gray Havens into Valinor. I needn’t go into any lengthy biographic detail for the reader, as the Don is known to nearly all, and others have made substantial effort on that account. I will, instead, express that I am forever grateful to this most powerful of wizards of the modern age. His was a true magic. His was the service to the Secret Fire.

The memory of this auspicious month had the effect of unearthing another. Every year in January, the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema—in honor of Tolkien’s Birthday—schedules re-screenings of the Peter Jackson films in their extended editions. I had attended all three films one weekend after the other in 2024. As with other films I have seen at the Alamo, it was the best cinematic experience by far. (If you happen to have one in your area, please do yourselves a favor and visit. You’ll likely never set foot in any other multiplex again.) For sure, there was the veritable pang of nostalgia--the films had been released during my most formative years. Many childhood friends and acquaintances were made because of the films.

Yet, here I was. 2026. A newlywed to a beautiful farmgirl from the Philippines. Her only experience of The Lord of the Rings being in fits and starts on a laptop with a cramped huddle of others around the screen-glow. Needless to say, I did not hesitate to book the tickets. Thanks be to God I bought them when I did. The screenings were nearly sold out for all three films. As I was in the Alamo app’s checkout I spied a detail for the screening I hadn’t noticed prior:

It was the 25th Anniversary!

If my more senior readership would afford me the grace to say so... “I feel old. Thin, like butter scraped over too much bread.”

I was taken aback. Could it have really been 25 years since the release of Fellowship of the Ring? Did I check the calendar? Was that right? The excitement began to well up from deep in the halls of remembrance. Parts of me, long forgotten, stirred. Embers once believed to have cooled still threw off a humble heat, felt only when held up to the cheek.

There was an air about the whole affair. Something I hadn’t felt the last time I went to see them. The nostalgia returned, but with new company. I couldn’t pin it down as we made the drive up scenic Route 29 to Charlottesville. An audio edition of Ian Nathan’s Anything You Can Imagine played over the speakers as the dim, snowless winter landscape of the Blue Ridge foothills rolled past us.

God bless my wife. Excursions to the cinema were not very common for her growing up. She has a lovely innocence about her when we watch anything she hasn’t seen before at home. Always asking what’s going to happen, expressing concern over the questionable choices of the characters, and a sensitivity to certain imagery. She becomes youthful watching cinema. When I look over at her she seems to glow in that childlike wonder modernity and healthcare have beaten out of me. Which is why I did not delay to book us a showing. It’s as if a spirit made it imperative that I take her. Whatever it was, it spoke to me, “While she still has this innocence she must experience Tolkien on film.”

It became a pilgrimage to something sacred, as if we were visiting a holy relic. Tolkien’s Legendarium has the gravitas of being such; a thing which bestows and awakens that which is virtuous, courageous, and indomitable within you. Perhaps this is what I was hoping for anyway. The hope that I regain the things which Middle-earth had given me in my youth and a chance to share in it with my wife.

We had gone into Charlottesville earlier in the afternoon. Some light shopping around for things we knew she needed for the kitchen; ingredients for cooking at prices more reasonable than what we could find near our current abode. And a brief, but bountiful, stop at the local Philippine bakery, Kalye 80’s, for Pan De Coco and Ube Ensaymada. No sooner had we got back into the car we were sampling our score. It had not yet occurred to her how hobbit-like we behaved in that moment. For myself, the theme had no escape from my noticing.

Dinner arrived, and with it, our arrival to the Alamo. It occupies a prominent place in its shopping plaza off Interstate 64. It is the tallest structure in the lot. The car park was quickly packing. Others had arrived to join in the festivities. Families brought their youngsters to experience the wonder and thrill of the War of the Ring, leading them by the hand through the doors, the children skipping and jumping in excitement.

We found our seats, started a tab with the waiter, and settled in while the preroll played. The room was packed. There were only four free seats left. Then the lights dimmed, we wallowed through the trailers (one being for Nolan’s The Odyssey), and finally came to the director himself, Peter Jackson. He offered some words and reminisces from his time working on what will forever be his magnum opus. It was touching, and rambling in his peculiar and heartwarming Kiwi way.

And then it happened.

As the New Line Cinema bumper rolled on I was struck with an epiphany. It was the answer to who was the unknown companion to my nostalgia.

No longer was I the lonely, young bookworm who had studied Arda with much fascination. No more did I come home to The Lord of the Rings as an escape from nursing-induced depression and anxiety. I was a husband now. Head of a new family lying in wait for what children God shall grace us. Priest of an ecclesia domestica. I had dedicated much time to study of many things for years after arriving at adulthood, especially after leaving my tweens. I’ve had experiences of tremendous depth and understanding. So much had changed. So much of myself had changed. I was about to return to Middle-earth with all that I had gained and all that I now was. And as the film progressed, as the familiar beats played out, I recognized what it was.

It was renewal.

The imagery, the landscapes, the lore, the wisdom of Mithrandir, the temptation from the Ring... I witnessed it in a way I had never done so before. Hints of depths hitherto unseen opened to me, inviting me. Iconography in motion. Moments I hadn’t paid close heed to before now pierced my heart. All I could do was weep. I was gifted tears.

I experienced Fellowship of the Ring in a way I had never done so before. My wife would, later on, express her excitement for The Two Towers, and how she hadn’t realized the grandeur of the films when she was first exposed. Needless to say, my heart warmed at that. And there is no telling what our next screening will stir in me. I pray more will be unveiled. Barring any ill-timed and nigh-disastrous weather, my wife and I will be there, at the Alamo, to come to the king’s aid at the sounding of the Hornburg.

And if this is what had befell me over the film adaptation, I can only imagine what awaits for me in revisiting the pages of one of England’s most profound pieces of literature ever penned.

Dear Unknown Friends, in this conversation, we explore the relationship between exoteric and esoteric Christianity, emphasizing that they are inseparable. We discuss the importance of understanding the internal and external aspects of faith, through the lens of liturgy and mysticism. I reference Valentin Tomberg's works to illustrate how these concepts are intertwined and challenge the notion that Christianity is limited to mere external practice.

https://youtu.be/0KiX2wp-uJM

Dear Unknown Friends, today I present some further ruminations on Christian amulet making in light of new archeological research and recovery. Fitting that the land which the St Benedict Medal was discovered happens to have, by way of the Frankfurt Amulet discovery, a tradition of ortho-practical amulet making as far back as the 3rd Century AD.