Christian Civilization -- The Central Issue

[Alexis Jacobi]

Doing a bit more research on her book Lest We Be Damned: Practical Innovation and Lived Experience among Catholics in Protestant England, 1559-1642. I do find this interesting. I assume she wrote this before she *went woke*.

For a long time the historiography of Catholics in early modern England was dominated by debates about whether they were old-style, traditional Catholics, or the product of post-Tridentine missionaries. Lisa McClain has very usefully sidestepped that argument by asking what the Church meant to English Catholics in a world in which access to priests, sacraments, altars, pilgrimage sites, and all the other means of worship was banned, abolished, dismantled, and forbidden. Her question is in keeping with current historiographical trends in English religious history, which see English Protestants creating their own new forms of personal faith in the post-Reformation period.

McClain shows us that English Catholics were doing exactly the same thing. All English people were involved in the same process with similar roots. English Catholics saw themselves as the heirs and defenders of the true historical faith, linking themselves to the early Church in ways reminiscent of the way their Protestant neighbors were insisting that they were restoring the primitive Church. Moreover, Protestant separatists had an analog in English Catholics, whose Catholicism varied radically from that of their Continental co-religionists. They, too, were feeling their way toward new expressions of spirituality and worship that did not depend on the presence of ordained clergy or legal worship spaces. McClain's book establishes a number of ways in which Catholics did this, and then explores Catholicism in Cornwall, London, and Northern England to illustrate how these new forms of Catholicism functioned in different settings.

In doing this, she defines "Catholic" as anyone who believed in the sacraments and rituals of Catholicism. This sidesteps the definitions imposed by Protestant authorities and by Catholic purists, leaving a group with widely varying practices that helped them resolve some basic conundra: How does a Catholic worship without a priest to provide the sacraments? How does one function without sacred spaces? How does one maintain a spiritual life in the community of the saints when there is no visible community? Can one be a good subject of the English monarch or must one be obedient to the Pope in all things? Using a wide range of sources, she reaches some stimulating conclusions.

There were, she finds, several ways of being Catholic. The English Catholics maintained an historical identity with the martyrs and persecuted faithful of the past, drawing their strength from historical models of triumphant resistance. As the number of their martyrs grew, so did their identity with martyrdom as proof of their faithfulness. This way of thinking allowed them to see themselves as part of the whole communion of the saints. But what they did to stay in that communion varied. There were those who practiced a form of rosary-based mystical union, even, in some cases, arguing that the Mass was not necessary for communion with Christ. There were communities in which membership was maintained through prayer, and communities that shared Catholic books and catechisms. Prayers for the dead kept up their identity with the larger Catholic world, past and present.

These communities, however, were English, and McClain demonstrates that the popes' refusals to understand the peculiar problems of English Catholics led the English faithful to distance themselves from obedience to Rome, relying on their own indigenous understanding of what it meant to be a faithful Catholic. This is an important book that moves the study of English Catholicism into a new realm by insisting that its subjects be studied as they lived, not as an ideological subset. However, it prompts a desire for further work on the nature of Catholic communities.

I suspect that the origins of English Catholicism are probably to be found in the intellectual and political confusion of the reign of Henry VIII and the compromises of the 1550's, rather than in the period after 1559. Additionally, some of her players, like William Alabaster, moved between Protestant and Catholic faiths, and one suspects that they need to be put in their personal contexts if we are to understand what they really believed. Moreover, the communities she describes are not fully articulated, and their practices are sometimes very hard to nail down. Her question is one that she, and many others, will want to pursue further... [end of what was available of the article]

[Iwannaplato]

Whatever I write has relevance.

Hm. I didn't say that it was irrelevant, for example to the thread. I said it didn't relate to what I said. There are many ways to use the quote function, of course. Generally, when people quote something - for example, short quotes like you did - and then write something directly after, most people think that they are writing something in relation to what they are quoting. I can certainly learn to work with your style, but I was pointing out that if you meant it to be a response to what you quoted, I don't see the relation. If you intended a connection, you're getting feedback that the person you are having a discussion with needs more information.

Though it may not be relevant to you. You seem to take personal offense at certain things said. I advise •taking it easy• but you don’t have to accept that advice.

Of course, you're very interested (concerned?) about my emotions and thoughts and comment on them frequently and give advice. I suggested you relax and focus on the topic. The long post that you said you didn't know what to do with. It was suggesting you stop telling me (and assuming) what I think and feel and also pointing out that it isn't necessary for the discussion. I truly believe you can manage to discuss Christian Civilization without talking about your guesses about my thoughts and feelings. That you are not very good at it is a side issue.

So, when you say traditional Catholics feel disgust with the present situation in the Church, do you mean (1) they are disgusted by what the priests were doing before the turn of the century? (2) Something else? (3) What is the insidious infiltration? (4) Do you believe in this insidious infiltration? (5) Are you disgusted?

1) I am certain that the infiltration of homosexuals and homosexuality into the Church is disgusting to all, and specifically to those of traditional bent (old style mass & liturgy — pre-Vatican ll) who see it as part of a whole process of corruption.

You do realize that there was a lot of heterosexual pedophilia also? What years do you think this infiltration took place? How to you rule out the liklihood that celibacy itself is a factor in sexual abuse? For example...
https://www.dw.com/en/australia-child-s ... a-41817456
and how do you rule out it having been present for a long time. For examples,
https://origins.osu.edu/article/catholi ... _entity=en
and a byproduct of both celibacy, power imbalance, the inability of people to believe authority figures could be pernicious - we've seen this in other areas such as war, where WW1 finally allowed the idea that wars need not be honorable and leaders may systematically lie seeped out into the general public.

I mean, we do have the history of the Popes and they have included some unbelievably dark figures in terms of abuse of power, sexual decadence, violence and more. And these go long back in time.

4) I do indeed. And I — an outsider — have had interviews with modernist priests who did not seem Catholic in a recognizable way. Note that the most radical (in the negative sense) were the Latin American priests. (As well as the Dutch and German I gather).

Do you see liberation theology as pernicious? Should they have allowed the powers that be to continue carry on their abuse of the people without speaking out?

[Did I mention that I stayed with Liberation Theology priests in Chiapas, Mexico a few years back?]

I'm not sure, but I am reading it first here. Do tell? What did you learn and experience?

5) What a strange question. Can you mention a person who is not disgusted with sexual abuse and manipulation of children?

Those who believe it never happened.

How did you think it was relevant, AJ?

You have made yourself •antagonist• here so your views of the CC and Christianity are indeed relevant. I say (still) you are a modern by upbringing

Why would you say that? You don't know my family. And you didn't merely say I was a modern by upbringing. And you assumed you could speak about what is hard for me to believe. Can you imagine you were incorrect and making false assumptions there?

though I do not deny your affiliation with animism (but I have zero idea what this means or why you took that route).

And your scathing view of Catholic scandals is a) common and b) justified.

Yes, that part of my views is fairly widespread.

But that does not necessarily mean that Catholic doctrine or metaphysical belief is the culprit.

No, by itself it doesn't. On the other hand, when I have asked you (and then also offered up on your own) you haven't put forward the celibacy of priests are necessary. You spoke quite specifically about the doctrines related to the need for a deity's grace etc. So, let's establish that the celibacy of priests is something that you consider necessary for the restoration of the West. If you do we can look at the issue more closely, and we can also find out why you rule out celibacy being causal.

[phyllo]

I am interested in her research and how she arrived at this assertion. But I will repeat that there are many reasons to be suspicious of academics and academia generally. And sensing her *agenda* I admit to a certain concern.

Yet I do want you to know that I recognize that she and people like her carry the present forward with their ideological activism. It is really what is going on and, from the look of it, there is no stopping it (and by that I mean a great many things). It is not precisely that I oppose their intentions (I have lots of reservations though) and more that I seek to understand the causal chain that moves from one orientation to another one, and radically different.

In short she is an activist within academia and as such (I assume) she is supported and carried by the university and those who are educated by her.

Sure, check her out.

And then move on to considering the substance of what she wrote. (If you are interested in the subject.)

However, your post sounds like you are dismissing it because of her.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I truly believe you can manage to discuss Christian Civilization without talking about your guesses about my thoughts and feelings. That you are not very good at it is a side issue.

My purpose when I read what other people write here is to try to see the ideas they express within the cultural and civilizational context. The forum medium is a blind one. We can only respond to what is written and we cannot see the person. That creates many different problems since we rely on the visual. And it often happens that we make assessments that are not fully accurate. If one gets something wrong, it can be counted on that one will be quickly corrected. But making assessments is not wrong in any sense.

I do not give a rat's ass about your emotions or your feelings. Put that all aside if you want to. But if you don't then keep working that angle. You gotta do you as the popular refrain goes.

My assessment of you, so far, but please make a correction if I do not have it right, is that you are quite obviously involved in a current of criticism of the Catholic Church, and likely also Christianity, which is common today. You, like many with critical armaments who have posted on this forum -- and indeed I have participated in this -- do not only operate in the realm of ideas alone but operate from positions that are psychological. For example you expressed that you were raised as a Christian and were an avid believer. But then something changed. What those changes were -- I mean what your personal process was and what the emotional cost to you was of rejecting your Christian upbringing -- is of zero interest to me here. But I am very interested in the processes of the rejection of our shared and foundational Christian heritage. I am interested in the processes of rebellion against those things I consider essential: the metaphysical superstructure. When these are lost and the connection to them broken or inhibited my observation is that people begin to fall apart. This *breakdown* is what concerns me not your own processes. And these things can only be discussed from an abstract position, avoiding emotionalism.

I think that the sexual abuse crisis is a very real thing and must be addressed. Presently, the Catholic Church is in a crisis. My own interests in the issue is one that I see as *constructive* and the reason I focus on constructivity is because I have studied the liturgy itself and I see that its essence has to do with invoking and participating in an act of ascent from a lower plane to a higher plane. This is what the traditional mass expresses. It is in this sense a magical act (I do not know how else to express this so I use the word *magic*) that involves a transcendental manoeuvre which is directed by the supernatural. And because I see this act, this ritual, as quintessentially important, I do not feel inclined to go with the flow of destructive undermining of that liturgy (in the first place) nor the attainments of the European Catholic Church.

is I read the Origins article (Wietse de Boer) and I certainly found it interesting. At the same time the gist of the article, the academic focus, and the apparent life-work of this man and others like him, is overall not a *constructive* effort by one interested in and capable of appreciation of this *essence* I describe, but one that fits into the general trend of *tearing down*. The attack on established hierarchies by zealous activists (as a 1960s phenomenon) is also a topic that interests me a great deal. And as I say I was raised up in it -- and thus my reference to California Radicalism. But that radicalism is not in any sense confined to California. We are all outcomes of these processes. And that means you too. This is beyond question. Or in any case I do not question it.

This mood, if I can call it that, may well express a critical motive observable in the larger Protestant criticism of Catholicism, which has been a trend in Northern Europe for hundreds of years. So, to better understand things one must separate the issues. On one side (if I can reduce it to poles) there is a very real and very potent anti-Christian movement that operates very powerfully in our culture. It is profoundly psychological and that is my assessment of Nietzsche's extremely potent effort to undermine those metaphysical essences or metaphysical structures. Is that all there is to Nietzsche and to such a critical position? Certainly not. But it is a major feature and it is one with consequences.

On the other side are those who, for various reasons (a complexity of reasons) seek to uphold or defend what I refer to as *the essence*. They may do this very well and with eloquence and spiritual power (Chesterton, Richard Weaver, CS Lewis, Christopher Dawson et cetera) or badly and without what I consider to be *necessary preparation*. One could also refer to a general image: the man -- the men -- of the mass who tears apart what he cannot really understand because he is in rebellion against restraint. Or *hates* authority. Give that man a bit of fuel and he can destroy in a generation what civilization has taken hundred or thousands of years to construct.

I mean, we do have the history of the Popes and they have included some unbelievably dark figures in terms of abuse of power, sexual decadence, violence and more. And these go long back in time.

Ah yes! Here he is. Come forward little man and make reveal where you stand. "Speak of the Devil and his horns appear!" Now, do not get offended! We all have such a *little man* inside of us and that man is nurtured by those currents I spoke of. You see that is my asseesment and that is my position. Like it or lump it.

You can focus on any European institution and you can find legacies of abuse and corruption. You will find this abuse and corruption not only in the CC but everywhere. It is a human problem.

In my view the task and the project I have set myself to is to study and to understand those metaphysical essences which come to our plane of reality from the supernatural source which, yes, I believe in. I have done this, for example, through an informal but protracted study of the Vaishnava religion (the religious philosophy of the Bhagavad-Gita and the worshippers of Vishnu) as well as studies of Bushido and other such disciplines. You have to go for the *essence* and try to understand what is there. My own trajectory has been one of coming from the peripheries of all manner of different perspectives and practices -- American Indian spirituality, East Indian religious and spiritual modes, shamanism, entheogens, Castaneda, and too many more to list -- and returning, by choice and by conviction, to that which is at the very foundation of our own civilization. It informs everything. Literature, social politics, ethics, art, jurisprudence -- everything. All I am doing is explaining where I sit and what my own focus is. My view is just as I have expressed it: If we do not, if we cannot, discover and recover that source and that essence within our selves, and in our own traditions, then *we* will continue in the downward cycle which is evident to may observers (of European civilization). But the very first point of engagement is at the level of the self -- interiorly. The first confrontation is an interior one.

[Alexis Jacobi]

However, your post sounds like you are dismissing it because of her.

I think that it suits your *purpose* to believe that I am dismissing her, as you say, when my position is different and far more nuanced.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Choosing it for yourself is one thing, imposing it on others is another.

We live in Liberalism. The idea of Liberalism is that the governing structure is like an umbrella and under that umbrella various different groupings exist, through perhaps separated by religious conviction and other factors, but that they exist *peaceably*. The function of the government, in relation to those disparate groupings, is to see that no one's rights are violated and no one faction can control the other.

The conversation that we are having here is taking place within a sort-of crisis within Liberalism. What is this about? What is really going on? That is the interesting and provocative question. To make a quick and superficial statement about it I would refer to The Culture Wars and to the concept of social battles and and confrontations around issues of value. That is what, on a popular level, is being fought over. There are certainly far larger battles as well (geo-political). For example it has been suggested that the world (the governments of the world) are gravitating toward a hybrid form of Communism. They say that the Chinese Communist Party -- a form of government that assumes the power to control what people think, say amd how they express themselves -- is gaining ground universally. Is this true? Is this real or is it a paranoid phantasy?

To all appearances -- again this is where I stand and this is what I think -- the value and standard of that lofty Liberalism is not only cracking but has shattered in ways that can be seen and talked about. For example Tomaslav Sunic (Homo americanus:: Child of the Postmodern Age) describes aspects of our Liberalism as having resulted in *liberal rot*. What is that? What does this mean? If something is putrescent it calls for dramatic measures if one follows through the metaphor.

Therefore, the conversation about *the present state of society* is not an easy topic by any means. If we are in *crisis* then how this came about must be understood. But even understanding may not help us. To see the unfolding and engulfing crisis through the picture of a giant wave that has come to its peak and is now beginning to crash -- this image might help us to understand what is going on. We are going to be drawn in even if we do not want to.

That is one reason why I have referred to CG Jung's essay on Wotan and also his essay After the Catastrophe. The first essay is a description of what he observed and felt (as an especially sensitive and tunes-in observer to the *psychic world* of Europe) before the outbreak of WWll. And the second essay, written well after the destruction in Europe, deals with what he understands to be a sense of guilt and complicity that cannot be avoided by anyone.

Now, you bring up what can and cannot be *imposed* on others in our liberal culture. Technically, you cannot impose anything Phyllo. At one time, yes, things were imposed through education and when people shared agreements. But not all those agreements do not any longer hold. And our society -- the reference is to the biding glue -- begins to come undone.

This is the situation we face.

[Iwannaplato]

I truly believe you can manage to discuss Christian Civilization without talking about your guesses about my thoughts and feelings. That you are not very good at it is a side issue.

My purpose when I read what other people write here is to try to see the ideas they express within the cultural and civilizational context. The forum medium is a blind one. We can only respond to what is written and we cannot see the person. That creates many different problems since we rely on the visual. And it often happens that we make assessments that are not fully accurate. If one gets something wrong, it can be counted on that one will be quickly corrected. But making assessments is not wrong in any sense.

I don't think I said it was wrong. I said it wasn't necessary. This is your thread, you are presenting an idea or set of ideas. You can look at my objections, questions and comments and respond to those as related to the topic.

And even thought I have corrected them, they come back again anyway. So, 1) there's no need for them and 2) they are incorrect and 3) they come back again anyway.

I do not give a rat's ass about your emotions or your feelings.

Great. And you don't have to give a rat's ass about my thoughts or what category to put my attitudes in or my thoughts that I haven't written. You can just focus on what I write. If something is unclear, obviously you can ask for clarification about that, as you've done. But you don't need to give me a label or categorize my thinking or tell me what I will have trouble understanding/believing and so on. It's off topic.

My assessment of you, so far, but please make a correction if I do not have it right, is that you are quite obviously involved in a current of criticism of the Catholic Church, and likely also Christianity, which is common today. You, like many with critical armaments who have posted on this forum -- and indeed I have participated in this -- do not only operate in the realm of ideas alone but operate from positions that are psychological.For example you expressed that you were raised as a Christian and were an avid believer. But then something changed.

What those changes were -- I mean what your personal process was and what the emotional cost to you was of rejecting your Christian upbringing -- is of zero interest to me here.

Great. I only raised it to say that your assumptions about me were not true. It sounds like you have trouble really believing in certain Christian ideas because you are a modern. I don't have that problem. I am not remotely modern in that sense. So, when you've brought this, we moderns, I have pointed out that this not the case. That's all. But it comes back again and again. We're different and then also, it really doesn't matter, since we can still discuss what part of Christianity you think is essential, the metaphysics, and go from there. So far I see no real justification for figuring me out, since the topic is not me, it is Christian Restoration of the West.

Is it possible for you to focus on the topic without guessing, being corrected, repeating guesses or making new ones? If so, please manage that.

But I am very interested in the processes of the rejection of our shared and foundational Christian heritage. I am interested in the processes of rebellion against those things I consider essential: the metaphysical superstructure. When these are lost and the connection to them broken or inhibited my observation is that people begin to fall apart. This *breakdown* is what concerns me not your own processes. And these things can only be discussed from an abstract position, avoiding emotionalism.

Great, but really my reasons for not being connected to many parts, but not all, of Christian metaphysics are not the topic. The topic is the restoration of the West and if Christian metphysics, as a whole?, in part?, which parts? is the right 'thing' to do this While it might be an interesting conversation to have about my specific process, it's off topic. For example, you keep talking about moderns who have a metaphysics very influenced by secular/scientific models (and generally a shallow understanding of the latter) and so miraculous, 'supernatural, and other categories they are skeptical about at best and these are in some sense foreign to them. Well, not to me. So, my individual process has little to do with what their likely resistance will be to the metaphysics of Christianity. Yes, there may be some overlaps - which I have talked about - but my individual journey is less relevant. And in case we can talk in general terms.

And it sounds like, as far as moderns, you understand yourself their resistance to the supernatural aspects, since you share those. You know those from the inside.

I think that the sexual abuse crisis is a very real thing and must be addressed. Presently, the Catholic Church is in a crisis. My own interests in the issue is one that I see as *constructive* and the reason I focus on constructivity is because I have studied the liturgy itself and I see that its essence has to do with invoking and participating in an act of ascent from a lower plane to a higher plane. This is what the traditional mass expresses. It is in this sense a magical act (I do not know how else to express this so I use the word *magic*) that involves a transcendental manoeuvre which is directed by the supernatural. And because I see this act, this ritual, as quintessentially important, I do not feel inclined to go with the flow of destructive undermining of that liturgy (in the first place) nor the attainments of the European Catholic Church.

Fine. I still am not really sure what parts of Catholicism you actually believe in, and/or those parts you think are necessary for restoration. Or even if you think it is necessary for people to believe in the metaphysics. Do you think they do?

Wouldn't that be the critical issue or at least a critical issue? What would it take for you to believe? That would likely give you a strong sense about how likely it is for moderns to believe in general and what it will take for Catholicism to be central in the west.

is I read the Origins article (Wietse de Boer) and I certainly found it interesting. At the same time the gist of the article, the academic focus, and the apparent life-work of this man and others like him, is overall not a *constructive* effort by one interested in and capable of appreciation of this *essence* I describe, but one that fits into the general trend of *tearing down*.

Decomposition, demolition, removal of unhealthy things/patterns, I see as useful. Though of course it depends on what and the contet.
Any restoration through Catholicism would entail the tearing down of what you call decadence and other patterns in society.

So tearing down, per se, if not bad, it seems even from your perspective.

The attack on established hierarchies by zealous activists (as a 1960s phenomenon) is also a topic that interests me a great deal. And as I say I was raised up in it -- and thus my reference to California Radicalism. But that radicalism is not in any sense confined to California. We are all outcomes of these processes. And that means you too. This is beyond question. Or in any case I do not question it.

Yes, it seems hard for you to stop telling me what I am. And truly, that really came out as a pretty neutral, factual observation.

This mood, if I can call it that, may well express a critical motive observable in the larger Protestant criticism of Catholicism, which has been a trend in Northern Europe for hundreds of years.

I have so much more in common with Catholicism than Protestantism.
I don't know how to help you understand that you don't understand me. But really, it has nothing to do with the topic.

Put me in a box, but don't mention it. I'm not the topic, so no loss.

I mean, we do have the history of the Popes and they have included some unbelievably dark figures in terms of abuse of power, sexual decadence, violence and more. And these go long back in time.

Ah yes! Here he is. Come forward little man and make reveal where you stand. "Speak of the Devil and his horns appear!" Now, do not get offended! We all have such a *little man* inside of us and that man is nurtured by those currents I spoke of. You see that is my asseesment and that is my position. Like it or lump it.

I didn't understand this response.

You can focus on any European institution and you can find legacies of abuse and corruption. You will find this abuse and corruption not only in the CC but everywhere. It is a human problem.

'Absolutely, but we are and especially were presented with Popes and priest as not being merely human. That is central to the metaphysics of Catholicism. And it is something that lead to problems. There was a similar problem with Kings. It may not be part of what you consider essential metaphysics we need. Earlier you gave short paragraph essence of Catholicism you see as needed. That did not require the quasi-transcendent status of priests and the even more nearly transcendent status of Popes, but it's in Catholicism.

If one wonders why there will be resistance, this is one of the factors.

If we can have the essence of Catholicism, without that, and that's what you're really seeking/hoping for, then, yes, that stuff is not necessarily relevant.

In my view the task and the project I have set myself to is to study and to understand those metaphysical essences which come to our plane of reality from the supernatural source which, yes, I believe in. I have done this, for example, through an informal but protracted study of the Vaishnava religion (the religious philosophy of the Bhagavad-Gita and the worshippers of Vishnu) as well as studies of Bushido and other such disciplines.

Which puts you outside the tradition in Catholicism. Which doesn't matter at the individual level, but since we are talking about your proposal, I'm not sure what that proposal is. That's not criticism or gotcha, but I mention it because I really don't know what you want to have happen when you refer to restoration via Catholicism. Maybe it's not Catholicism but something you think is within a variety of religious traditions. This is important when considering an actual set of changes in society. Does the US come under the Vatican? or is there a shirt in society toward certain facets of foundational mysticism without a specific organization getting central. I still have no idea what is actually being suggested. And the answers would make it clearer what the objections would and would not be.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Any restoration through Catholicism would entail the tearing down of what you call decadence and other patterns in society.

Bad metaphor. Tearing down is violent, destructive, and does not depend on a constructive will nor constructive ideas.

Reconstruction, rebuilding, re-forging connections: these require careful, considered thought.

The latter takes time and effort. The former occurs often very quickly.

I have so much more in common with Catholicism than Protestantism. I don't know how to help you understand that you don't understand me.

You appear to wish to be understood within the context of the thread’s topic. And you react to being misunderstood. Why you hold back from clarifying what you do feel to be true is anyone’s guess. I believe you should make the effort.

Popes and priest as not being merely human

I’ve never encountered such a thought. They are indeed “merely human”. What is the alternative? What you have written about is abuse of authority and manipulation by authorities. Pretty ugly those deeds are.

Which puts you outside the tradition in Catholicism. That's not criticism or gotcha, but I mention it because I really don't know what you want to have happen when you refer to restoration via Catholicism.

If I were a convert or devotee, yes. But Catholicism (those I read in the tradition) find merit and beauty — truth as well — in non-Christian traditions. They do believe that their views need to be •corrected• but they are not without appreciation of the aspirations in other traditions.

That explains why Catholic dogmatics easily follow Platonic outlines — but it is corrected by the recognition of a divine authority.

[Wizard22]

Continuing with Iwannaplato. This excerpt is from an adjacent thread and it seems highly relevant as a true picture of IWP’s position in respect to the Church and also possibly Catholicism and Christianity:

[Directed to Wizard]

...

I've avidly kept up on your thread and will be on to respond later tonight

[Alexis Jacobi]

I still have no idea what is actually being suggested.

As a starting point the transformation and restoration presented as possible involves reforging a life-line with and a connection to divinity (metaphysical being), both as a concept and as a realness that one — what is the word? — submits to or in any case relates to on inner and outer planes.

This involves the difficult feat of •overcoming oneself• as a rebellious, self-willed individual.

Then, I gather, the issue is one of locating proper and trustworthy authority, receiving advise and direction, and resolving to live it.

I believe I said as much here:

My own interests in the issue is one that I see as *constructive* and the reason I focus on constructivity is because I have studied the liturgy itself and I see that its essence has to do with invoking and participating in an act of ascent from a lower plane to a higher plane. This is what the traditional mass expresses. It is in this sense a magical act (I do not know how else to express this so I use the word *magic*) that involves a transcendental manoeuvre which is directed by the supernatural. And because I see this act, this ritual, as quintessentially important, I do not feel inclined to go with the flow of destructive undermining of that liturgy (in the first place) nor the attainments of the European Catholic Church.

[Alexis Jacobi]

We should not be playing Defense against them. They should be playing Defense against us.

It is interesting: to notice the shift from defensive positions to offensive positions — I mean culture-wide, in media, among those who represent those ‘values’ that we believe are crucial.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I still have no idea what is actually being suggested.

Once the •higher metaphysical• agent or being is conceived (felt? logically deduced?) I think one of the primary actions of the person we are imagining here, is in •self-examination•. This definitely is a crucial process in Catholicism. The self-examination is certainly highly personal but I also think it extends to examination of our own society, culture and yes our civilization.

Obviously, I am referring to the notion of penance. This is no small affair.

[Ask Harvey Bard, an avid reader here. He’ll tell you!]

Obviously there needs to be an ethical system, a theology of ethics, by which one makes self-assessment and social assessments. That is where •spiritual philosophy• and •religious philosophy• have relevance and impact.

Once an Authority is defined, and then ethical and moral precepts, and once the individual is engaged conceptually and supernaturally, my view is that things begin to fall into place. It becomes an issue of duty and responsibility.

What is the source of spiritual renovation? The questioned is answered by a) inquiry of one who is going through it or has been through it, and b) by reference to what one (you, me, anyone) has experienced in their own moral life.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Dawson, speaking still of European Catholicism, outlines six ages of the Church. The last phase is one, according to him in which we are still in. This Tridentine reform represents the *traditionalism* I have often referred to. I bolden parts that interest me:

The reaction against the Reformation produced the Tridentine reform of the Church and the revival of the religious life through the influence of new religious orders. The cultural issue was met by the development of a new form of Christian humanist culture and education, while the age of discovery was followed by a great outburst of missionary activity, which found its greatest representative in St. Francis Xavier, the apostle of the Far East. These new developments reached their maturity in the first half of the seventeenth century when the Catholic revival found expression in the new Baroque culture which dominated the artistic and intellectual life of Europe and represents the more or less successful fusion of the tradition of the humanist Renaissance and the spirit of the Catholic revival. In its religious aspect the most distinctive feature of this Baroque culture was the great development of Catholic mysticism which took place at this period and had a considerable influence on the art and literature of the age.

But the success of the Baroque culture was comparatively a short one. Its weakness, and that of the Catholic revival itself, was that it was too closely dependent on the success of the Catholic monarchies, especially the Hapsburg monarchies in Spain and Austria. When these declined, the Baroque culture declined with them, and when the third great Catholic monarchy was destroyed by the great political and social cataclysm of the French Revolution, the Church was the first victim of the change. As the armies of the French Republic advanced through Europe, the established order of the Catholic Church was swept away. The monasteries and universities were destroyed, church property was confiscated and the Pope himself was deported to France as a political prisoner. In the eyes of secular opinion, the Catholic Church had been abolished as a superannuated relic of the dead past.

Thus the Sixth Age of the Church began in an atmosphere of defeat and disaster. Everything had to be rebuilt from the foundations. The religious orders and the monasteries, the Catholic universities and colleges and, not least, the foreign missions had all been destroyed or reduced to poverty and impotence. Worst of all, the Church was still associated with the unpopular cause of the political reaction and the tradition of the ancien régime.

Yet in spite of all these disasters the Church did recover and a revival of Catholicism took place, so that the Church was in a far stronger position by 1850 than it had been a hundred years before when it still possessed its ancient wealth and privileges. This revival began in France during the Revolution,under the shadow of the guillotine, and the exiled French clergy contributed to the creation or restoration of Catholicism in England and America. Indeed the whole history of Catholicism in the United States belongs to this sixth age and is in many aspects typical of the new conditions of the period.

American Catholicism differs from that of the old world in that it is essentially urban, whereas in Europe it was still firmly rooted in the peasant population. Moreover from the beginning it has been entirely independent of the state and has not been restricted by the complex regime of concordats which was the dominant pattern of European Catholicism in the nineteenth century.

But at the present day it is the American rather than the European pattern which is becoming the normal condition of the Church everywhere except in those regions like Eastern Europe or China where it exists on sufferance or under persecution. I will say no more about the present age as it is dangerous to generalize about a period which is still unfinished. The present age of the Church still has centuries to run and who can say what even the present century will bring forth? On the one hand Christians are faced with an external threat more formidable than anything we have known since the time of Islam. On the other hand the intellectual and spiritual lassitude that marked the last two centuries has largely disappeared and we see on every side the awakening of a new apostolic spirit and a wider concern for the unity of the Church.

Each of these ages has only a limited duration; each ends in a crisis, a divine judgment in which a whole social world is destroyed. And insofar as these social worlds have been Christian ones, their downfall creates a problem for the Christian who sees so much that appeared to be part of the consecrated, God-given order swept away together with the evils and abuses of a corrupt society. This however is only a particular example of the problem of the relativity of culture with which all historians have to deal. But whereas the secular historian is in no way committed to the cultures of the past, the Catholic, and indeed every Christian, is bound to recognize the existence of a transcendent supra-temporal element at work in history. The Church exists in history, but it transcends history so that each of its temporal manifestations has a supernatural value and significance. To the Catholic all the successive ages of the Church and all the forms of Christian culture form part of one living whole in which we still participate as a contemporary reality.

One of the main reasons why I dissent from the current threefold division or periodization of Church history as ancient, medieval and modern is that it is apt to make us lose sight of the multiplicity and variety of the life of the Church, and of the inexhaustible fecundity with which, in the words of the liturgy of Easter Day, God continually calls new peoples into the divine society, multiplying the Church by the vocation of the Gentiles. I have spoken of the Six Ages of the Church -- there may be sixty before the universal mission of the Church is completed. But each age has its own peculiar vocation which can never be replaced, and each, to paraphrase Ranke's famous saying, stands in a direct relation to God and answers to Him alone for its achievements and its failures. Each too bears its own irreplaceable witness to the faith of all.

[Iwannaplato]

As a starting point the transformation and restoration presented as possible involves reforging a life-line with and a connection to divinity (metaphysical being), both as a concept and as a realness that one — what is the word? — submits to or in any case relates to on inner and outer planes.

This involves the difficult feat of •overcoming oneself• as a rebellious, self-willed individual.

So, with the restoration and transformation take place when many individuals choose to reconnect to divinity? Is there any parallel shift in organizational scope or a connection between religion and government? Or is this about many individuals choosing, you hope, to change in this way.

Then, I gather, the issue is one of locating proper and trustworthy authority, receiving advise and direction, and resolving to live it.

And did you have someone or some organization in mind?

I know you've talked about Catholicism, so this may seem like a naive question, but sometimes it seems like the acceptance of a metaphysicl idea by many and not necessarily through the CC or any other organization, new or old.

I believe I said as much here:

My own interests in the issue is one that I see as *constructive* and the reason I focus on constructivity is because I have studied the liturgy itself and I see that its essence has to do with invoking and participating in an act of ascent from a lower plane to a higher plane. This is what the traditional mass expresses. It is in this sense a magical act (I do not know how else to express this so I use the word *magic*) that involves a transcendental manoeuvre which is directed by the supernatural. And because I see this act, this ritual, as quintessentially important

So, by liturgy, just the mass or all the rites, ceremonies, prayers, and sacraments of the Church. And in either case would this mean through the current Catholic Church?

And how do you see this happening, if it happens? Like let's say the US moves in the direction of restoration through this rite, what does this look like at a societal level? Lots of people start moving on their own towards participation in Masses at Catholic Churches? or would other acts of ascent from a lower plane to a higher plane be acceptable? Is there any change in the church state relationship?

[Iwannaplato]

Any restoration through Catholicism would entail the tearing down of what you call decadence and other patterns in society.

Bad metaphor. Tearing down is violent, destructive, and does not depend on a constructive will nor constructive ideas.

Ah, so when you described this person

is I read the Origins article (Wietse de Boer) and I certainly found it interesting. At the same time the gist of the article, the academic focus, and the apparent life-work of this man and others like him, is overall not a *constructive* effort by one interested in and capable of appreciation of this *essence* I describe, but one that fits into the general trend of *tearing down*.

You see him as violent and destructive.

In any case, sometimes things need to be removed or undone. The issue is what things or should this thing be removed or undone. Or in this case, would it be a good thing if X became central.

Reconstruction, rebuilding, re-forging connections: these require careful, considered thought.

The latter takes time and effort. The former occurs often very quickly.

So, you see Wietse de Boer as calling for the violent destruction of the church?

I have so much more in common with Catholicism than Protestantism. I don't know how to help you understand that you don't understand me.

You appear to wish to be understood within the context of the thread’s topic.

Actually I'd like it not to be a topic at all. You respond to my points and, given there's no need to assess me in the various ways you've tended to, you just leave that out.

And you react to being misunderstood. Why you hold back from clarifying what you do feel to be true is anyone’s guess.

Really? I thought I made it very clear,. I said it was off topic and that you weren't good at it. Also that when I say no to your interpretation of me, you repeat it at some point.

I believe you should make the effort.

I'd prefer it we talked about the topic. You've made these remarks and I've responded to them to quickly say how they are not correct. Someone is talking about me incorrectly, I correct briefly or deny the assessment. I have also said that it is off topic and doesn't bring us closer to working anything out on the topic. So, me going into some longer explanation of my beliefs and positions is...besides the point of the thread. I wouldn't bring them up except to briefly correct you incorrect statements about me.

Then when presented with odd defenses of this practices of yours I've responded to those.

Here's what I'll do in the future: If you assess me again, I'll write 'false, stop doing this please'. Or if you happen to be correct, I'll write, stop doing this please. Hopefully you'll stop this off topic pattern and you can focus on my questions, points and critiques. YOu certainly do this sometimes without assessing me or making assumptions about what I am. So, I'm confident you can manage this in the future

Popes and priest as not being merely human

I’ve never encountered such a thought.

Priests are considered conduits for God's grace. When ordained they are consider to have an indelible mark on their soul that indicates both a special connection to the deity. A priest during mass is acting in persona Christi Capitis. When Pope's make official decisions they are considered infallible. Mere humans are not infallible, even when making official decisions. And these are official stances on these people. Anyone watching how people relate to priest and certain Popes can see that they are related to as not of the same kind as the rest of us. And this is not discouraged officially.

Which puts you outside the tradition in Catholicism. That's not criticism or gotcha, but I mention it because I really don't know what you want to have happen when you refer to restoration via Catholicism.

If I were a convert or devotee, yes. But Catholicism (those I read in the tradition) find merit and beauty — truth as well — in non-Christian traditions. They do believe that their views need to be •corrected• but they are not without appreciation of the aspirations in other traditions.

For much of church history finding merit and even, it seems, best explanations in other traditions might well have gotten you killed. This changed, but it has been a part of church history. And the rule for a long time.