Il cattolicismo è veramente la religion più perfetta, come la filosofia europea moderna è la più perfetta filosofia: sono insieme le più alte creazioni dello spirit ariano.
(Catholicism is truly the most perfect religion, just as modern European philosophy is the most perfect philosophy: together, they are the highest creations of the Aryan spirit.)
~ Giovanni Gentile
In earlier times, Christianity was comprehensible to one, incomprehensible to another; but only our age has succeeded in making it repellent and mortally boring.
~ Vladimir Solovyov
We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.~ T.S. Eliot (Four Quartets)
It is often stated that the West is Christian, particularly the USA, or at least that it retains its Christian nature. According the Guenon, this is the opposite of the truth:
It is said that the modern West is Christian, but this is a mistake; the modern outlook is anti-Christian because it is essentially anti-religious; and it is anti-religious because, in a still wider sense, it is anti-traditional; it is this that gives it its particular character and causes it to be what it is.
He continues:
Everything of any value still to be found in the modern world came to it from Christianity, or at any rate through Christianity, which brought with it the whole heritage of former traditions and has kept that heritage alive.
This is the important point: whatever is of value in paganism has been incorporated into the Christian religion. The later historical deviation that tried to “purify” Christianity of such elements, only succeeded in ushering in the modern world.
Where, even in Catholicism, are to be found the men who understand the deeper meaning of the doctrine they profess outwardly, and who are not simply content with “believing” in a more or less superficial way, sentimentally rather than through the intelligence, but who really “know” the truth of the religious tradition which they claim for their own? One would indeed welcome some evidence of the existence of at least a few such people, for that would be the greatest and perhaps the only hope of salvation for the West.
Perhaps Guenon did not look East for the answer, or else he looked too far East, so he missed the ideas emanating from Russia. Vladmir Solovyov said the same thing, decades before Guenon: what the believer believes in faith, the metaphysician knows, provided he makes the necessary efforts. Solovyov admits that Christianity offers nothing original in its metaphysics, which is the basis for all primordial traditions whether for pagans, Christians, or the Oriental religions.
As for realistic possibilities, Guenon writes:
It seems quite clear that there is now but one organization in the West that possesses a traditional character and that has preserved a doctrine capable of serving as an appropriate basis for the work in question: that organization is the Catholic Church. It would be enough to restore to the doctrine of the Church, without changing anything of the religious form that it bears outwardly, the deeper meaning really implicit in it, but of which its present representatives seem no longer to be conscious, just as they have ceased to be conscious of its essential unity with other traditional forms.
This would sound incredible both to those who reject Catholicism out of hand, but also to those within the Church who do not see it that way. From a metaphysical point of view, we must be clear about whether we are speaking of the real or the ideal. Clearly, the “real” church, that is, in its actual material manifestation does not demonstrate the ideal characteristics mentioned either by Guenon or Solovyov; in Guenonian language, we would say it exists only virtually.
There is a lively debate going on about whether Catholicism or a reconstituted paganism is the future of the West. Unfortunately, it is usually done on the exoteric level, or solely about exterior forms. This amounts to little more than debates over personal preferences and tribal affiliations. But esoterically, to be Traditional, they must agree in metaphysics. The Hermetic philosophy in the stream from Hermes Trismegistus to Pythagoras to Plato to the Neoplatonists and much more serves as the foundation both for paganism and Catholicism. The full implications of this must be understood first. Then the discussion can turn to which exterior form best preserves the primordial tradition or is better suited to the spiritual temperament of the West.
Aye of course. The “neo-Paganism” of today seems even less capable than the Church, as it is by and large derived from the modern weltanschaaung.
And this is perhaps the curse of our age: that outer forms are disconnected from their essences. The result is that appearances deceives – one can no longer expect the mask to correspond to the actor’s defined role in the play.
When forging a blade one needs not only the proper material, but one also need the proper knowledge on how to forge according to proper procedures. Such knowledge, such procedures, such material – seems to be lacking – no matter what form such a blade is believed to take before profane eyes.
And following this I see little hope in Catholicism. Both theologically and as an institution it is in the firmly grip of revolutionary ideology. On a practical plane this means that in order for it to resemble a function as a Tradition one needs to bestow upon it an interpretation (i.e hermeticism) that for all intents and purposes present itself as peculiar vis a vis the established catholic doctrines.
Yes, exactly, although you pose a question, not an answer. But first we must clarify precisely what Tradition is in order to understand counter-tradition.
And are those currents at the “very core” or are they a seed?
So let’s concede that, at a minimum, there exists a seed of counter-tradition. Nevertheless, it just remains virtual in Catholicism. It is only the revolutionary forces that actualize that seed, that is, they make it real. We can point out, in agreement with Evola, that these forces include Protestantism, Jacobinism, Liberalism, Socialism, Marxism, and so on. From the true Traditional Catholic perspectives, these are all heresies, not part of the “very core”, but rather dangerous deviations from that core.
In “Pagan Imperialism”, Evola points out that the Church missed an opportunity in the Counter-Reformation; viz., it did not go back far enough to its Traditional roots. Instead, it let the heretics control the dialog and the Church tried to defend itself on their terms. So we see sucessive waves of Catholics embracing revolutionary ideals, becoming themselves biblical literalists, believers in the rights of man, liberals, socialists, Marxists, etc. Even those who, today, self identify as Traditional Catholics only go as far back as the council of Trent. They are, for the most part, uncomfortable with the ancient and medieval Church, ignoring the likes of Dionysus the Aeropagitve, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, the Philokalia, chivalric and feudal society, and the Hermeticism that was at the base, surfacing to the public eye only occasionally.
What I am trying to warn against, is a sort of mindless anti-Catholicism, that (1) rejects what is traditional in Catholicism along with the counter-traditional currents, and (2) embraces the ideals and arguments of the revolution on the theory that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Evola was certainly more subtle than that, but that will have to wait for future translations now in preparation. He was anti-Catholic on the “other” side, so to speak. He certainly would have disapproved of much that is called neo-paganism in his name; as a matter of fact, he said that many of them would be better off being Catholics.
Keep in mind that the revolutionary enemies of the Catholic church were also Evola’s enemies. He has written that his viewpoint is what “every well-bred man prior to 1789 would have considered sane and normal.” Obviously, prior to 1789 that civilization was based on throne and altar, and was a Catholic culture. How many neo-pagans would feel comfortable in that milieu? It wouldn’t take me too long to count them.
I essentialy agree with Evola’s stance on Catholicism. That is: even in its traditional hierarchal and imperial form it is tainted with ‘counter-traditional’ currents that thrive at the very core of its beeing. To believe that Catholicism will be able to provide any solution regarding the spiritual climate of our age seems to me to be founded on unrealism.
Well at the very least you are proscribing a thesis to the spiritual divide of our peoples, ripped apart from the reformation. It would be interesting if you could expand more on the said lively debate. What is your stand on this matter? What is your solution or opinion to said discussion?