FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Christianity divorced from Monarchy
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
https://westcoastrxers.com/2016/04/10/on...icularism/

Okay. So a fellow blogger in my sphere of politics. (he's a perennialist and pagan of sorts so we do have our disagreements, however he is quite intelligent) wrote an article. The article itself is not so much what I want to show here, but I want to draw attention to the quotes in his piece by a fellow Catholic who describes in his understanding, why the Church and the West are in crisis and its relation to the destruction of Monarchy. Its very interesting, and I found the last quote relating the Crucifixion and the modern Church to shine a light of hope in way. Feel free to add thoughts on it. (Catholic quotes are in bold)

Quote:The well-known and notorious “European paganism versus Europeanised Christianity” question has been addressed and dealt-with many a time here at West Coast Reactionaries, as well as by me and others in a series of podcasts on my YouTube channel. The overall direction the debate has moved towards appears to be that whilst Christianity — especially in the West — has by-and-large collapsed in exoteric terms, to turn to any external, id est foreign, alternative is either distasteful individually or impossible collectively.

The two most oft-mentioned alternatives to Christianity in Europe are the pre-Christian pagan religiousity which our ancestors practised, and an Islam which — at the moment — is perceived as a strong and masculine force (though with its chaotic and petty accretions) which is seemingly fit demographically as well as esoterically (according to Rene Guenon) to replace Christianity.

I have said it more than once that I believe — with Paul Andersen — that Europe’s Christian tradition is a synthetic mix of the pre-established German and Latin paganism reconfigured through a sort of Semitic solar monotheism, where God walked the Earth as man in order to lead us upwards on the proper path; and this is partly why the tradition has entertained the very possibility of undergoing collapse and various stages of degeneration (the Reformation, Vatican II, et cetera), because it did not come to Europe in a “pure” form, it was an imported force which was tweaked and re-interpreted and so forth by different groups and people. The Arians were once considered Christians; that is no longer the case — even a group like the Knight’s Templar was eventually crushed by the Catholic Church itself. The infighting, various splinters and different sects of European Christianity speak of an underlying “roughness” to its exotericism and ways in which the religion filters through the general culture and ethos of the people. Paul believes that these things can be remedied, though it would be no easy task of course to essentially come up with a “new” Christianity (not to mention heretical as Nick Steves has said). Nick noted that a religion is never “cut to fit” a given people as Truth is of course not questionable, thus active attempts to sort of fit Christianity into the box of Europe are in vain. I see this whole affair as a misunderstanding. Christianity — Catholicism, Protestantism, Anglicanism, et cetera included — does not need to be changed at a doctrinal level, at the esoteric level. What must be changed is actually Europe. The box is not big enough.

A friend of mine, James of Dantean Dialogues, recently responded to Mark Citadel’s excellent Open Letter to Pope Francis. Allow me to quote the comment in its entirety:

Dear Mark,

Despite the great intentions of your open letter, it fails to fundamentally understand the nature of the Church as a feminine being. Your calls for a “muscular” and “masculine” Roman Catholicism is tantamount to demanding a feminist Church. Allow me to elaborate.

In Western Christendom, you correctly perceive a lack of masculinity and spiritual virility. However, the Catholic response is not that it is the Church that lacks masculinity, but society itself — what we in the West used to call “The Empire.” In traditional (as opposed to traditionalist) Catholicism, especially if one reads Dante whom Benedict XV in his encyclical IN PRAECLARA SUMMORUM calls “the most eloquent singer of the Christian idea,” the ideal society is composed of a feminine element (the Papacy) and a masculine element (The Emperor) — what Dante would call “the two suns.” The understanding was that the Emperor himself was the highest seat of earthly authority and that the pretensions of the Papacy for secularization was a usurpation. This can be understood in the analogue of the family which has both a mother and a father. This is why the Roman Church is referred to as “Holy Mother Church.”

Thus, if we take the analogue of the family, one never complains that the wife or mother does not contain enough masculinity! Indeed, she would rely on the father — the husband to provide the necessary virility to protect the family. What you are witnessing is not a cowardly Church, but one who is fulfilling her vocation as a woman. And, just like women in the analogue of the family require men to govern them, so, too, does the Church require an Empire in order to flourish. You were correct to note that the Church readily endorsed the virile actions of the Crusaders, but this was because those actions were performed for the sake of “Christendom” which was just another idea of the European Ecumene — the Imperium; the masculine aspect. If the man abandons the family, is the solution to ask the woman to become a man? No! This is the secret meaning behind the passage of my namesake: “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” (James 1:27) The Church is a widow and the poor European nations are the orphans.

Therefore, while your polemics make good points, they should be aimed not at the woman who is being constantly pulled here and there by the ideologies of the world, but the impotence of the so called “traditional” men who have yet to resurrect the Empire who adored the Church like a man loves his wife. Real men do not let their wives and mothers fight their battles for them! Real men do not complain when their wives and mothers are not “muscular” enough to fight foreign invaders. If you consider yourself to be a man, then protect the Church rather than complain about her.

Sincerely,
James
A Catholic


Mark’s response is agreeable enough, though I would disagree with him regarding how “robust” a Church must be. The Church — any Church — is a feminine entity. It is a passive entity, that which receives and transmutes, that which interprets and relays. The Empire James speaks of is the masculine side of any true civilisation. One must have both the Priestly element and the Warrior element present in the society, and the realisation of these things within the social order births a civilisation in the proper sense.

The Church in Europe is declining and degenerating — and I hold this to be the case all the way back historically — because of Kali Yuga informing the social zeitgeist. It has little to do with specific events in the Church or the actions of the Church per se, but the natural ebb and flow of the moving world of Kali. The Empire and the Church traditionally work in tandem, but it appears the domain of action (the Empire) has fallen first, and the domain of contemplation (the Church) falls with it.

The animating spirit in any religious order must necessarily find some contextualisation beyond its mere potentiality. Whether in prayer or Jihad “the demon of action,” to quote Guenon, must rear its head. How to restore the Church is perhaps not the question in need for asking; instead we must ask “How do we restore the Empire?” Alas, I believe the only answer lies with God, and it will reveal itself with time.

Things brings us onto another point regarding Europe’s religion. Whatever has happened has happened for a reason — there are no accidents. The Age of Destruction must come and pass; the wheel must turn; it is unavoidable. Regarding the religion of Europe, perhaps it is necessary that it falls apart to be replaced by something we are yet to see? I do not think for a second that Islam will fill the void, but perhaps its presence will act as a catalyst through which the European soul can be refound and recontextualised, fit for the next age and its men.

Whether we are in this process proper or not, however, is quite irrelevant. One’s actions are aligned with principle, not potential. European men should be inwardly strong first and foremost, not liberalised, weak and effeminate. Religion — Christianity — can facilitate this, as it did with the Crusades, with Charles Martel, with the Iron Guard, with Charlemagne, et cetera. It is not that Christian doctrine has changed, but that man has changed. And so can he be changed for the better.

NOTE: After sharing this article with James, he had this to say:

Hmm. You know, over the years, I’ve spent a lot of time pondering the role of Christianity in the world and how to resolve it with my intrinsic understanding of eternal truths. I find that the figure is hidden in the mystery of the crucifixion itself — and I’ve spoken about this to various friends of mine in my circle.

The way in which the Church degenerates and decays over the ages should not be surprising to Christians, but it is that is because the body of Christ was always destined to die and decay. The crucifixion is a microcosm of the era in which “God is dead” because for three days, he was indeed dead; and the decay in which the Church is undergoing is the same as that of the body of Christ when it was nailed and entombed. That is the secret and hidden meaning of the crucifixion: that it is happening in macrocosm today in the modern age; the modern age is the first act of the Easter Triduum and this is also why most of the apostles — being unable to understand this mystical death of the Catholic Church — have gone astray denying Christ thrice (as Saint Peter did; the first Pope). Only Saint John, the mystical apostle, the one whom Jesus loved, stayed to the end at the cross, loyal to the body that was dying.

This is the position I wish to emulate; to be the apostle who sees the decay of the Church but does not waver from the decay, because the rest of the exoteric religion still believes like Saint Peter does; e.g. “God forbid, Lord that you should go to Jerusalem and die.” Right now, the Church must go to Jerusalem and die because she is the body of Christ. And since the body of Christ underwent torture and crucifixion so must the Church. So when I see people jeer at the Church and tell her “Stop being so weak; change the world!” I also hear those words from the gospels “If he is the chosen one, let him come down from the cross.” People do not understand that something utterly mystical is happening in the modern age. Just as the modern age is the darkest of all times, so was the crucifixion the darkest time. It is the time when God is dead
.

Really good article, DeoDuce.
Not sure what I think of the gender-issue to put it that way, but I do think the analogy has some merit, and part of the current crisis is precisely due to the fact that the "mother" is spending all her time trying to "father" the world, and not enough time 'mothering' her children.

I very much like James' thoughts. I have seen interpretations of the life of Christ along similar lines in Robert Hugh Benson's reflections, that I think were turned into a book called "Christ in the Church." I highly recommend this book. He also suggested that the life of Christ finds expression in the life of the Church: the 'hidden years' of Our Lord's life, for instance, he sees expressed in the monastic traditions.

Even St. John fled on the Mountain of Olives. So perhaps it is no surprise that at times we have no apostle standing up. I suppose that one could count the holy bishops, the Burkes and Athanasius Schneiders and so forth. But, as at the Crucifixion, this is small consolation for what is happening before our eyes.

Thanks for this post. Much food for thought.
Well, you have got to admit that the analogy is not perfect if not heretical itself. Firstly, if the Church represents the feminine in reality then why is the priesthood always and everywhere (even in the old testament) masculine ? Everytime priestesses are introduced (even as an idea) one is already suffocated by the foul odor of heresy and impurity.
There is of course the language of the Bride of Christ and Mother Church, but an essential aspect of the Church is to conform ourselves to Christ Himself. One might imagine, at first glance, that women are more naturally drawn to the Church because of the image of being a bride, of entering into marriage with Christ and so on, which is utterly repulsive to men. On the other hand, another strong analogy (even stronger) is the Church as the Body of Christ (the response to the article mentions this one, at the end), which is masculine. So, as a counterpart to the bride's image which is more fit for women, it looks more natural that men participate in living in Christ, in imitating Him, etc.
Christ is not only priest (male) but also king (male), and it is through Him that any just monarch rules. But Christ acts in the world through His Church (again, His Body). The sovereignty of the state is actually a modern principle, based on a Christian heresy. Traditional Catholicism (which is not opposed to traditionalism, in any sound definition of the term) posits the state as being subjected to the Church, as the body is subjected to the soul. It doesn't mean they are of the same order and its a direct hierarchical subjugation, but rather one is deferential and learns from the other. Not to mention, of course, a Catholic monarch is part of the Church—even more so than the pope if the pope happens to be a sinner and the monarch a saint.

As an aside, I think applying Guenonian exoteric/esoteric to Catholicism is, quite simply, an error. Christianity has no hidden doctrines or hidden mysteries (rather we have the paradoxical open mystery). Really, why anyone still pays attention to gnostic Muslims who openly declared wanting to Islamiphy Europe is beyond me (not an accusation of you, DD, but of the author).

On the passion of the Church, yes, totally agree. There's actually a quite unbelievable quote from Pius XII :

Quote:A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, “Where have they taken Him?”
Some very interesting points. I think it is also worth pointing out how, going back to Constantine, emperors have frequently played a leading role in reforming the Church while she for her part can only ever indirectly influence the reform of political society. As RF points out, Christ is both priest and king and while the Church represents the priestly and human aspect of Christ, rulers represent the kingly and divine aspect. Obviously, rulers cannot receive this kingly role from the Church as she lacks the power to bestow it upon anyone. On the other hand, kingship always contains something of the priestly.

Unfortunately, the Church has all too often promoted pernicious ideologies with the goal of subverting political authority. In the past, this usually meant ultramontanism while today it usually means liberalism and social democracy, but the end result has been the same in either case. That is, rather than the Church gaining in power and influence we have instead seen only the decline of legitimate public authority and the rise of private and unacknowledged power, which is a complete negation of the Christic aspect of true sovereignty. To continue the male-female analogy, I suppose we might say that this is all a little like a man failing his girlfriend's shit-testing?
When did the Church try to subvert political authority ? When some petty king tries to control the clergy of a country and then throwing the pope into prison, all the while conspiring against a major military order ?

Anyway, just to complement what I said earlier, another way the analogy fails is that in a family the man is the head of the woman, but to say that the state is the head of the Church is almost blasphemous. What we are living today is precisely that : the secular (which is actually anti-Christian) order has entered the Church. The problem is not some mythical ultramantonism, but liberalism infiltrated in the Church (papal positivism is merely one aspect of it, as one changes from a traditional monarch to an absolutist monarch).

I also forgot to address the Dante issue : his politics and beliefs are very suspicious. I wouldn't really take him or his local Florentian disputes seriously.

Anyway, this is an interesting subject, but I should lament that we'll never get to see a traditional monarch (well, never in our life times, but still) if we don't give up our modern prejudices against our glorious monkish past of the Dark Ages.
(04-12-2016, 05:21 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: [ -> ]When did the Church try to subvert political authority ? When some petty king tries to control the clergy of a country and then throwing the pope into prison, all the while conspiring against a major military order ?

Anyway, just to complement what I said earlier, another way the analogy fails is that in a family the man is the head of the woman, but to say that the state is the head of the Church is almost blasphemous. What we are living today is precisely that : the secular (which is actually anti-Christian) order has entered the Church. The problem is not some mythical ultramantonism, but liberalism infiltrated in the Church (papal positivism is merely one aspect of it, as one changes from a traditional monarch to an absolutist monarch).

I also forgot to address the Dante issue : his politics and beliefs are very suspicious. I wouldn't really take him or his local Florentian disputes seriously.

Anyway, this is an interesting subject, but I should lament that we'll never get to see a traditional monarch (well, never in our life times, but still) if we don't give up our modern prejudices against our glorious monkish past of the Dark Ages.


Very good points RF. I didn't think of it all as heretical. I think I understand what the guy was trying to say, and it was a response to Mark Citidel, who is another blogger I really enjoy, who wrote an Open Letter to Francis about things. He's Orthodox, but the letter was pretty good. Not that I look at the analogy I can see the flaw. It imposes a lot of power on the Ruler. It must be put into frame of what James was responding too. In which Mark called for the Church to defend to Occident better. And what James is trying to get across is that it was the armies of the Kings that defended Europe. The Church did too, but Then Pope himself had no armies. When the Church was in troubles It could call on the defense of Sovereigns (Crusaders). So I saw it more like that. But I see your point.


Btw I'm quite a fan of the monkish past of the dark ages
Kinda reminds me of a podcast I listened to not too long ago. It's From Fr Thomas Hopko. Basically he outlines what he calls the American Secular Religion. That Protestant America eliminated the Christian religion and replaced it with our secular religion. We did away with Church holy days and replaced them with our civic holidays. We have our holy days (Independence Day, Labor Day). We honor our martyrs (Memorial Day, the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier). We eliminated the Christian saints and replaced them with secular saints (Washington, Lincoln). We even have a messiah who saved our secular religion (Lincoln). We venerate the relics by looking at artifacts and tombs. We have icons (look at our money). Instead of pilgrimages to Christian holy sites we visit our secular holy sites (the Capital, Washington Monuyment, Gettysburg etc). We even have our sacred scripture (Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, the Gettysburg Address. Overall the point he is making is compeling. That God created us to be worshiping, liturgical creatures and that in the absence of true religion we have to find something to replace it with. Honestly realizing this has reordered much of what I thought about our nation. Here is a link to the podcast.


Here
(04-12-2016, 05:21 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: [ -> ]Anyway, just to complement what I said earlier, another way the analogy fails is that in a family the man is the head of the woman, but to say that the state is the head of the Church is almost blasphemous. What we are living today is precisely that : the secular (which is actually anti-Christian) order has entered the Church. The problem is not some mythical ultramantonism, but liberalism infiltrated in the Church (papal positivism is merely one aspect of it, as one changes from a traditional monarch to an absolutist monarch).

Perhaps the State is not the head of the Church, but the State is the head of society - we don't live in a theocracy where the priests and bishops are the rulers. Even in mediaeval Europe, it wasn't the Church punishing people; the Church might judge heresy, but the heretics would be handed over to the state to be punished. Of course, the laws of the state were to be guided by Christian morality, just as the father is the head of the household, but the mother is its heart.
Well, we don't live in anything, really. Not sure talking of where we live should be an argument on Christendom.

And if you read carefullu I doubt we disagree in any major way (sans, of course, the language of the mother being the heart and comparing that to the Church). I'm not saying only priests can rule, but until that Napoleon shenanigans (and he was undoubtedly a true heir of the revolution)  kings were crowned by bishops.

Christ is King, and Christ acts in the world through the Church. Secularism is a myth.
(04-12-2016, 09:11 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: [ -> ]Well, we don't live in anything, really. Not sure talking of where we live should be an argument on Christendom.

And if you read carefullu I doubt we disagree in any major way (sans, of course, the language of the mother being the heart and comparing that to the Church). I'm not saying only priests can rule, but until that Napoleon shenanigans (and he was undoubtedly a true heir of the revolution)  kings were crowned by bishops.

Christ is King, and Christ acts in the world through the Church. Secularism is a myth.

Empire and Church are two pillars of the same truth. The cathedral I attend has four mosaics of angels on the dome inside. Each Angel represents something which you can tell by what they hold. One is the Church another is temporal authority and it holds a septor and crown. I agree with you. Divorcing temporal authority from religion is wrong. The King draws his authority from God, the Church represents God on earth, therefore the must work together in a sense. For me the Empire plays an important role because it is the temporal shield of society and that society is the flock of the church so in a way it also acts as a defense for the church from outside aggressors.
Pages: 1 2