This is a post we had no intention to write and it was not on our schedule. Nevertheless, it seems necessary at this time to summarize several months of efforts. First of all, one must resist the urge to debate, since our goal is gnosis, wisdom, or knowledge. Hurling platitudes across a barrier will never lead to knowledge; that should be verifiable in your own experience. This is not to deny the value of informed discussions that ideally lead to clarification, precision and depth. The difference is that a discussion requires shared presuppositions and a shared goal. I’ve been told that in Internet lingo there is a creature called a “troll”, whose only purpose is to disrupt such discussions. However, in traditional terms, a guest who arrives uninvited and then feels it his right to set the tone and agenda is merely rude and vulgar.
Any discussion about whether some spiritual movement is traditional or not must be based on specific criteria, some of which will be listed below. Please try to apply these criteria to all such discussions.
It is important not to be fooled by words without a specific reference to a concrete time and place. For example, as a word “Christianity” means very little; on the other hand, it is fruitful to discuss Western Europe from the time of Charlemagne until the Reformation. Note, too, that Guenon went to Egypt not to Albania; there is a reason for that.
Hierarchy
- Is the society hierarchical?
- Is it caste-based (spiritual, warrior, skilled and servile workers)
- What is the position on spiritual authority?
- How is temporal power exercised?
The Elite and Initiation
- Is there an elite who knows and understands metaphysical principles?
- Is there an initiatic path to lead suitable candidates to such knowledge?
- Is the foundation of thought based on transcendence or simply material concerns?
- Are there dogmas, symbols and rites that the lower castes can accept that are consistent with the knowledge of the elite?
Cycles
- Is there an awareness of understanding of cosmic cycles?
- Is there knowledge of a Primordial state and a fall from it?
- How is the decline and ultimate repeat of the cycle understood?
Ownness
- Does the spiritual system define the society?
- Does it recognize boundaries (e..g, saved/unsaved, clean/unclean, etc.)?
- Are such boundaries preserved and protected?
To give an example, it is quite clear that in Medieval Europe, the spiritual system was felt and experienced as “one’s own”. Those who opposed it, whether internal or external, were treated as enemies of the state. Nowadays, no one fears excommunication from the church. However, at that time, that it was much more serious since it also implied excommunication from society and the consequent loss of all civil rights.
Decisionism
In a hierarchical society, each layer pledges loyalty to those above him, and then ultimately to the Emperor who embodies both spiritual authority and political authority in the same man. As such, his spiritual authority is infallible and his political authority is absolute. In making law, the Emperor has no theoretical restraints. Evola wrote about this in Pagan Imperialism prior to (I believe) Carl Schmitt’s writings on decisionism, which amounts to the same thing.
Therefore, when, for example, an Emperor Constantine decides to change the state religion, he is acting within his rights and his loyal subjects will go along. Similarly, over time, the various kings made the same decision. Those who see an injustice in this reveal their latent modernism. Evola did not seem willing to recognize this as a logical consequence of this view.
understand*
EXIT, you are being intellectualy dishonest.
It is “common knowledge” the Catholic Church is not initiatic? So if I ask Joe Schmoe on the corner he will understant what I mean?
No serious student would ever make such a claim. You do not even pretend to care about sources, evidence, citations, nothing. What matters is “It’s your conviction.”
The fact that you think a priest would even be charged with blasphemy in the post-Vatican II Church indicates how far removed your knowledge of Christianity is.
Again, it is “common knowledge” that the Knights Templar fell due to machinations of Phillip the Fair of France, and not primarily the Church, who did not suspend the Order until years after it had actually folded.
BTW, Cologero, I had already decided to “go away” as you put it. I want nothing to do with this hoax that you expect people to slavishly follow and I don’t appreciate dogmatic illogical arguments in the name of tradition.
Cologero, every time you lose an argument you tell the person who defeated you to go away and call him a troll.
Perennial, it is common knowledge that the catholic church isn’t initiatic. Why don’t you become a priest and openly incorporate initiatic rites in your congregation and see how far you get before you are charged with blasphemy just like all the rest that the church persecuted including the templars which were never absolved of the blasphemy charges because they practiced initiatic rites which were not part of official Catholic rites.
Speaking of which, anyone have info on Eternal Star or the Cavaliers? I would love to do a deeper study of their practices and initiation, but I find material on the subject lacking, outside of Sedgwick’s book.
“By the time of the Catholic church there was a completely new religion which had no relation to original Christianity.”
How so? Examples? Citations? Anything? What is this “original Christianity?”
“Graham if they were initiates then their extra-catholic initiations were done in secret because such rites were not approved by the church, hence I wrote despite the church. In other words, the church is not initiatic.”
Even Guenon admitted, as Mark Sedgwick pointed out in Against the Modern World, that this is not wholely true. The Catholic orders of the Eternal Star and Cavaliers of the Divine Paraclete were believed to have a valid initiation, and Guenon admitted they held some value as an initiatic path. He just felt they lacked the necessary resources for daily observance, as the Sufis did.
Besides, no religious tradition is “wholely” initiatic. These is a minority who aspire to this type practice, but no major religion is entirely, or even mainly, esoteric. So does this criticism extend to all major religions as well? Again, no evidence the Church either suppressed or discouraged these practices. Where do you find this? Do share.
EXIT, you respond without responding:
Note the claims:
“Graham if they were initiates then their extra-catholic initiations were done in secret because such rites were not approved by the church, hence I wrote despite the church. In other words, the church is not initiatic.”
No citations. No papal letters, ecclesial documents, nothing.
“Perennial, you need to learn how to read, for you are taking my words and twisting them into meanings that were so far from what was intended that it is obvious you are simply propagandizing.”
Where and how? This is a general statement, nothing specific addressed. This is not an argument.
“This claim is not valid for as Guenon and Schuon wrote very early in Christianity the tradition was altered and lowered to a purely exoteric religion.”
This has what to do with Apostolic Succession? You asked about authority, and where they get it, not initiation.
“All of the rites had changed and lost their esoteric validity.”
Evidence? Examples? What is “esoteric” validity? That is a theologically new concept.
I confuse nothing, Exit. You make a pointless distinction without merit. Why don’t you quote the entire passage about why the “church” became esoteric. It was a necessary phase of the cosmic cycle, something we have been alluding to all along. What you narrowly call the “church” — which you don’t bother to define — is only one part of the spiritual heritage of the Middle Ages. So what? Of course, an entire population cannot be participate in an initiatic order, at least not in this age of the cosmic cycle.
As to your point about the incorporation of “foreign” initiatic elements: isn’t that what we have been claiming all along?
As for the present day church, we have not said much, since it is only up until the 14th century that we have been referring to.
As for your point about Pharisaism, the Pharisees opposed the church and still do. Are you a troll, Exit, someone with the same agenda as the Pharisees? I think it time you go away, you’ve outworn your welcome.
Cologero, you are confusing the catholic church with initiatic organizations. And he states in Insights on Christian Esoterism that even before the church Christianity was lowered to an exoteric religion which is why the Templars received their initiatic transmission from the Sufis not WITHIN the church. You can dig up whatever quotes you like to make your position look better but the facts speak for themselves. The church is nothing more than an extension of Pharisaism and Christianity would be NOTHING if it weren’t for Sufism or other foreign initiatic elements.
Exit, out of respect to other readers, I’m asking you to provide specific references when referring to Guenon or Schuon.
In Lord of the World, Guenon writes this:
So, Guenon, at least, attributes a much later date than you suggest. Unfortunately, the initiatic link to the pagan mystery religions was lost much, much earlier. That is the situation we are in today.
Perennial, you need to learn how to read, for you are taking my words and twisting them into meanings that were so far from what was intended that it is obvious you are simply propagandizing. I will therefore only deal with one point that you addressed which is the only relevant one in your rant, and that is the Apostolic Succession. This claim is not valid for as Guenon and Schuon wrote very early in Christianity the tradition was altered and lowered to a purely exoteric religion. All of the rites had changed and lost their esoteric validity. By the time of the Catholic church there was a completely new religion which had no relation to original Christianity. A spiritual lineage is so by initiatic transmission which is the whole basis of tradition, it does not exist in Bible passages or bloated claims written in stone.
Graham if they were initiates then their extra-catholic initiations were done in secret because such rites were not approved by the church, hence I wrote despite the church. In other words, the church is not initiatic.
“Graham, by Christian Middle Ages, no traditional author has implied the Catholic Church!!! but rather the Templars and initiatic guilds which operated underground despite the church!!!!”
I find this information surprising. I was under the impression that the two primary doctors of the Church, St. Augustine and St. Aquinas, were initiates, and that St. Bernard (the Cistercian initiate who blessed and tutored the Templars) was for many years the most powerful man in the Church. But now I see that it was all a big fraud.
James,
Most of my knowledge on Mithraism comes from it’s latter existence in Rome and the Middle East, from the 1st to 3rd centuries AD. From what I understand, by that time it had become decadent. It was still inspired by solar principals, but it’s practices centered on rituals around tauroctony reliefs, baccanal-like banqueting in Roman collegiae, and a purely ceremonial observences of the the Seven initiations. There are even scholars who believe women, slaves, and merchants had overtaken the military in observing the Mithraic cult. This is what I have read. Perhaps you could share some of your knowledge?
Again, EXIT, you prove my point. All of this is pure conjecture on your part. Where does the Church get the power? See St. Matthew 16: “Thou art Peter, and it is upon this Rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” St. Luke 10:16 “He who heareth you heareth me.” Also, your point seems decidedly untraditional from how I would see it. By what authority? Whose right? As de Maistre would point out in du Pape, just as temporal authority is meaningless if not absolute, the same applies to spiritual authority, as all power “comes from above.” Again, Evola in Revolt Against the Modern World stated that the Church was in her right to punish to non-believers (although the Church did not, it was the State punishing heresy as a secular offense). A similar principal was used by Maurras about the Dreyfuss case “better one man be punished then a whole nation lost.” I notice you do not point out that Schuon thought the Sacraments were initiatic, something Evola mentions. I never claimed that Guenon said anything about the Sacraments, only that he said the Catholic Church could be the source of a restoration. Again, the Catholic Church “denying people rights.” What are you talking about? Where do you find this? Are you a civil rights activist? Can you cite anywhere at all where a Church official says this? Again, many of the traditionalist writers point out there is an exoteric and esoteric practice to religion. Evola has stated that only the elite generally know and understand the esoteric doctrine. You are claiming that unless an entire institution in esoteric, it CANNOT be esoteric. How do you reach this conclusion? Based on what? EXIT, I am becoming convinced you heard something about the Gospels from a passing stranger, because if you do not know the Sacraments are in the Gospels, I cannot help you. Not only are they there, but all 7 are there. If you want me to bother showing you where I will. I find it funny because your description of what Romans taught sounds suspicially like what Catholic monastics practiced, mortification and purification for union with Christ. Again, the Catholic Church, if you ever read tables of Apostolic Succession, can trace their origins all the way to the founding Apostles. How can you miss all this? What are you basing you views on? Can you explain this?
How were these mystery cults lunar when the very nature of initiation is solar? Are you suggesting that since there were entheogens involved that made them lunar? Wasn’t mixed wine used in early Christianity before it was lowered to a purely exoteric religion? As for Catholicism being a fraud, Guenon denied the initiatic validity of the sacraments which have nothing in common with the Gospels, hence they are a fraud. The Gospels speak of attaining gnosis not the state of perpetual forgiveness that Catholicism preaches. Romans says to crucify the body of sin, to offer yourself as a sacrifice to God, that you may know the perfect will of God through your body as a temple. The Catholic church denies its followers this right while in life, and assumes dictatorial control over what rites and teachings can be practiced. It excludes the very means of knowing God by denying the validity of initiatic rites and persecuting all who do so as blasphemous heretics. Jesus said that his doctrine was not his but of the Father who sent him, and that those who do their will shall come to know this doctrine; who is the Church–any church–to say what is official doctrine or not? From whom do they trace their lineage? The church is no more connected to Jesus and the Apostles than are modern occultist groups to the Templars.
Perennial,
Thanks for the tip o’ the hat. However, your next remark on cults again needs more verbal precision. One often speaks of ‘mystery cults’ as lunar tout court, but certainly Mithras was a solar cult if any was! Apart from the solar and military aspects, consider above all the exclusion of women [which some “modern” Mithraists have tried to ‘remedy’]. Evola calls it “the very heart of the Western magical tradition” promoting “self-affirmation, light, greatness, regal spirituality and spiritual regality.” So I guess he would prefer it to Constantine if not Charlemagne!
Mark,
I have a scanned version of Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s book “Kant: A Study and a Comparison with Goethe, Leonardo da Vinci, Bruno, Plato, and Descartes” as a word document. I started editing it with the intention of making it available as a PDF file. Unfortunately, I never found the time to complete the project. Would you be willing to help move that project forward?
As for Evola, he taught himself German as a young man with the express purpose of studying the German Idealists. At that time, Italy, because of Giovanni Gentile and Benedetto Croce, was the center of Idealist philosophy. Evola wrote a few large tomes expounding his own system of Idealism, which he called Magical Idealism. Sadly, those books will never be translated into English. I don’t recall the exact quote you mention, but it sounds plausible.
If you are seriously interested in how Evola brings Transcendentalism Idealism to its logical conclusion, I suggest you read “The Individual and the Becoming of the World”, which I have translated. It is a very brief summary of his idealist philosophy, but it does bring up some interesting issues.
By the way, if Schuon was so contemptable of “sentimental” theology, he sure did not show it when he wrote The Fullness of God or prayed with his statue of the Virgin Mary! Same with Guenon, although he gave up believing the Catholic Church would be WILLING to revive the West, he did not believe they could not do it. And what was Evola so wrong about they suddenly you toss him out so slightly? Besides, the Mystery cults, while esoteric, were certainly lunar, devotional, and decadent, as was Crowley. I use Evola as a guide, but you are right, he is not a prophet. But how does using decadent cults show your devotion to superior values? Is Mithraism really what you have in mind to revive the West? This is superior to Charlemagne’e Roman Empire?
I meant, JAMES, you make a good point!
By the way, you make a good point. It does well to define our terms.
Again, I do not follow your reasoning EXIT. If what you said is true, and “Dionysionism” inspired the Christian Faith, could we not use that inspiration to “revive” Christianity. Is the tributary not still fulfilled by it’s source? Just pointing this out. Would the result not be same, if one inspired the other and they are based on the same philosophy?
EXIT, what on earth is the “true spirit of Christianity?” Could you give an example, of perhaps, something Christ actually said, as I have in other posts.
I also have yet to see anyone say what the Heathen society of tommorow would like. What is based on? It’s rituals? It’s example? What is it based on? WHAT ARE YOU WORKING FOR?
out* scores
Heathens, you confuse me. You type our scores of opinions of Christianity, never once citing Catholic or Eastern theologians, saints, popes, or sources. Where’s the beef? You make arguments about whatever you want and make any sort of claim without citing sources. The best I have seen contradictory citations of Evola, but I will confess Evola admitted that his views changed and evolved as the years went on. (See Il Cammino di Cinnabro) Heck, you do not even cite the poetic or prose Edda, or any other Heathen source of note. What is your view based on?
When did I ever say that I deny the possibility for gnosis? You just like to make things up. Earlier I stated that I recommend the ascetic view of philosophy since it allows one to achieve the Nous. I also like Kant for his Transcendental Idealism, which I believe to be a Traditional Indo-European metaphysics. Does that mean that I accept all of what he states? The answer would be no. I believe it was Evola who himself stated that he believed that he took Transcendental Idealism to its logical conclusion.
Again, to comment on your statement that I “deny gnosis”. I am interesting in Traditional metaphysics that see behind the phenomena to the noumena, so stop making things up about me (That I support egalitarianism, that I deny gnosis). You are an incredibly dishonest person.
Mark, I think it is time for you to go away. You are far from reasonable. The problem with you Kantians is that you are obsessed with method and thus fail to get to anything interesting or meaningful. You are like those diplomats who dispute for months about the shape of the table and fail to get to negotiations.
You don’t have to accept me as a spiritual authority. Nor have I ever asked you to.
But if you deny the very possibility of gnosis, then there is no possibility of reasonable discussion. In other words, you are bullying me into accepting your viewpoint to even begin any discussion. No thanks.
I have offered you topics of discussion more than once and you have yet to respond. We obviously have nothing in common, so your obsession in engaging me borders on the pathological. Please move on.
Also, where did I state I was egalitarian? I actually stated that Sacred Authority rested in the legitimate priest class (Volvhs, Gothars, and Druids)
Am I Egalitarian because I am asserting the spiritual authority of a Slav, Celt, or Scandinavian over his own people than a Greek or Roman over his people?
You got me, James. The quote from Tennyson is quite modernist. Who knows how many other stray thoughts from the 8th grade are still stuck in my mind?
The reference to Kant was that discourse ethics is based upon practical reason, and not one person bullying another. Just as Kant has “conditions necessary for the possibility of experience”, think of discourse ethics as the “conditions necessary for the possibility of a reasonable discussion”.
I deny that you have some superior insight that I don’t have, and I do not hold you as any sort of spiritual authority whatsoever. Thus we need to start with certain rules that can make a discussion reasonable, or else one person will claim that he has this gnosis that makes him correct.
What is happening is that people are critiquing your comment on decisionism, and the “The Great Cologero” does not like to be challenged.
People are being fair and reasonable in their discussions, but you choose to ignore what they said. I did not only say that sacred authority and temporal power must be wedded, but that certain people were the spiritual authority, and that is what you chose to ignore.
Since James brought up “The Mandate of Heaven”, I will bring up an interesting article that deals with China on this topic.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/aug/28/china-future-christianity
China: the future of Christianity?
It seems that there is a possibility that China would become Christian for economic reasons.
“Second, the recommendations of the prominent Chinese economist, Zhao Xiao, that market economies benefit from active religious groups seem to have been adopted by the CCP leadership. Perhaps eying the benefits that a strong, state-approved Christian voluntary sector could bring to China, in late 2007 President Hu Jintao announced “the knowledge of religious people must be harnessed to build a prosperous society”.”
So, if Hu Jintao was to dispose of the Taoists, and institute his state Christianity, would that be appropriate since he is the leader? 400 years later, who would be the Traditionalists? The Calvinist Christians or the Taoists?
Mark, I’m trying to be helpful to you, but you need to cooperate. You come as a guest, so you don’t choose the menu. You need to read the articles in Gornahoor and reference them. That is my ethic, and it is rude of you to assume I cannot understand your standards. Rudeness by a guest is unethical.
After you have read them, these are some points you need to ponder.
We don’t accept “universal reason”. There is a gnosis, a knowing, which the ancients and medievals called intuition or nous, which is superior to reason.
Kant denied the very possibility of knowing spiritual reality (noumena). Hence, we reject Kant.
Have we denied here that Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power need to coincide? Have you read what has been written about the roles of the Pope and Emperor? Obviously not, yet you expect us to go out and read the Tyr journal. Are you suggesting we close down the blog and replace it with that journal?
We emphatically reject your egalitarianism and democratism. Those who know (see above re gnosis) are the spiritual authorities. Those with the ability to command wield Temporal Power. It is not up to individuals to decide that. That is anarchism, the very opposite of Tradition.
Finally, contingent historical events don’t prove metaphysical principles. We are just not interested in them, unless you can tie them into the law of cycles or the law of castes.
Mark, that is the menu we offer. If you like it, you are welcome to dine with us and discuss these points. But don’t come knocking on the door holding a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken and expect us to be thrilled.
“Ours is not to reason why, ours is just to do or die.” Those gladiators must have been reading Waugh on the tour bus.
I think you’re thinking of “Morituri Te Salutant”. The difference is perhaps significant. The gladiator regains his nobility in death, while the Light Brigade is a group of bourgeois mercenaries dying for ‘an old bitch gone in the teeth’ [Pound].
Anywho,
“The Emperor, that is, a true one … is not subject to any external constraints, … Least of all is he subject to questions about his “legitimacy” or “own-ness” or whatever other fabricated categories you fellows claim to be able to discern.”
“We fellows” raise questions of legitimacy? And who specified “a true one”? That, of course, is the question at issue. “One is only Wang if he possesses the Mandate of Heaven” [Guenon, Great Triad [108-09].
The Emperor, yes, but precisely by betraying the Roman tradition Constantine proves he was no Emperor.
“Macbeth, in symbolizing a warrior-king, does obviously not have the ‘mandate of heaven.’ His innate nature does not contain an upward striving tendency, but a downward, inferior tendency, which makes him unfit for such an elevated position. Macbeth as a warrior-king cannot be regarded as a “real” king in its esoteric meaning and is thus upsetting the whole natural hierarchy; taking what is not given to him by fate or destiny and a position which he is in no way qualified to hold because of his corrupt inner nature. Being a bridge between heaven and earth signifies ruling according to the Divine Law and such a leader cannot be impure otherwise the Divine could not be “passed down” vertically.”
–The Esoterism of Shakespeare’s Macbeth [http://tinyurl.com/4qqygw7]
I have to comment on this since we are talking about Decisionism. Interestingly, if we click on the wikipedia link, we find that discourse ethics is a form of decisionism.
Cologero is wrong about me setting the terms of the debate, if he understood the basis for discourse ethics, it would be based in the universality of reason that is in Kant. So, it is not me arbitrarily setting the terms of the debate, but practical reason. So, this shows that when I adhere to higher rational principles then I am not trying to assert only power, but I wish to justify this power based upon authority.
This then takes us to my next point, there was another great article in the Tyr Journal that dealt with Traditionalism, and that was Sacred Authority and Temporal Power. The two must be wedded together.
One of the positions of the “Northern pagans” is that Temporal Power does not have Sacred Authority behind it. Take the example of St. Patrick, he was Roman, and he drove the snakes (Druids) out. They will argue that the Druids are the Sacred Authority, and not a Roman. The same thing has happened to Scandinavians, Balts, and Slavs. The priest classes (Volvhs, Gothars) were targeted for extermination. It is they that had Sacred Authority. They will argue that Christian priests coming from Greek and Roman lands do not have Sacred Authority in their lands, thus Temporal Power was removed from Sacred Authority.
“Day of Remembrance for Volhvs
Gruden (November) 11
“At the time of Gleb Svatsolavich, a Volhv appeared … who went unto the people and told his story. …A rebellion of great proportions occured in the town, and the people were set on killing the bishop. The townspeople became divided: Knjaz Gleb and his consort sided went with the bishop, but all the people sided with the Volhv.” – Tale of Years Past
The great rebellion in all the High Volga Region occured in Susdal in the year 1024. In 1071, two Wizards gave orders to the vast area from the Volga. ‘In the year 6735, (1227 C.E.), four Volhvs were immolated for their conjuring and working of magic. And God did this! They were all burned in Jaroslav’s Court’. – First Novgordian Epistle”
Julius Evola on the Church, Romanity, the Reformation and the “Semitic” element.
My position is not Catholic doctrine. I thought I was clear in attributing it to Evola. You guys are tedious in not accepting the most reasonable conclusion: viz, there is one Roman tradition. Even those radio preachers understand that.
The Emperor, that is, a true one who is simultaneously spiritual authority and temporal power (see City of the Sun), is not subject to any external constraints, including any moral code or historical precedent. Least of all is he subject to questions about his “legitimacy” or “own-ness” or whatever other fabricated categories you fellows claim to be able to discern.
“Ours is not to reason why, ours is just to do or die.” Those gladiators must have been reading Waugh on the tour bus.
The fact is that for the average Roman not much changed. In the month of May the town holds a procession to Demeter one year, and to the Virgin in the following. Instead of hundreds of minor gods and goddesses to pray to for various needs, he now has just as many patron saints. Pythagoreanism lived on, the mysteries lived on, the knightly orders lived on. We have the evidence. Are you upset they did not leave a paper trail for contemporary historians?
Feast on this, again from Evola, it makes good bed-time reading. The power of the Emperor is absolute. And the power of Constantine created our “Nordic-Roman Middle Ages”; he was a warrior, a visionary, a creator, a saint.
“Decisionism”
This confuses moral culpability with intellectual or spiritual. The vassals pledged to Constantine would be absolved of guilt for their apostasy, as they were bound by their pledge; Constantine would be held accountable for his errors — and a fortiori, theirs. Heavy the head…
Actually, perhaps not. Is not each individual held liable for his own belief? To believe otherwise is Protestant bigotry: Catholics are cultic robots who follow the Pope without question.
Thus, Rex Mottram in Waugh’s Brideshead Revisited. Rex is an opportunistic convert with an… expansive notion of the virtue of docility. As the priest trying to instruct Mottram recounts:
“Yesterday I asked him whether Our Lord had more than one nature. He said: ‘Just as many as you say, Father.’ Then again I asked him: ‘Supposing the Pope looked up and saw a cloud and said “It’s going to rain”, would that be bound to happen?’ ‘Oh, yes, Father.’ ‘But supposing it didn’t?’ He thought a moment and said, ‘I suppose it would be sort of raining spiritually, only we were too sinful to see it.'”
This is supposed to be exasperating and comic.
So, your position is not Catholic doctrine. But you would impose this on the Roman citizen? And if it is, then Roman Catholicism isn’t “traditional”. So now who is “illogical”?
As for that Roman tradition Constantine supposedly represents, is it not “The Rome that emancipated itself from its aboriginal Atlantic. and Etruscan Pelasgian roots; destroyed in rapid succession the great centers of the more of the more recent Southern civilization, despised the Greek philosophers and banned the Pythagorean sect, and outlawed the Bacchanalia, thus reacting against the avant-garde of the Alexandrian deities” [Revolt p. 276]; did it not increasing fall “under the spell of the onslaught of the Asiatic cults that rapidly infiltrated the structures of the empire and altered its physiognomy”? For “Constantine” read “decadent weakling;” a real Roman would have dispatched him on sight. Constantine, by his choice itself, showed he was no legitimate emperor.
Yes yes yes; the ‘liberals’ are agog at the idea of Schmitt’s ‘exception.’ But I can decide whatever I want and no one will care. IF I am President, then perhaps I could go on TV and declare martial law; but even then, what if no one pays attention? [Nixon could have in 1969; Trudeau did in Canada; but in 1974, Kissinger told the Joint Chiefs to ignore Nixon’s signals as he was ‘gaga.’]. All justification is retrospective, if I can get away with it; that’s why none dare call it treason.
Decisionism means that if I declare an ‘exception,’AND it goes through, then whining about ‘procedures’ is irrelevant [Lincoln and habeas corpus]; consent proves my legitimacy. It doesn’t mean any fool can proclaim a new religion and hey presto, there we are.
Cologero, Julian has no relevance to the points laid out.
Graham, by Christian Middle Ages, no traditional author has implied the Catholic Church!!! but rather the Templars and initiatic guilds which operated underground despite the church!!!!
Guenon and Schuon had nothing but contempt for the sentimental theology which was in no way equal to intellectual metaphysics.
Perennial, if the Dionysian mysteries were decadent then so is shamanism, Mithraism, and countless other initiatic traditions. Evola is not right about everything; in fact he is the least accurate of the traditional authors. For instance, Evola claimed that Crowley’s Thelemic sex magick system was valid without even having firsthand accounts or even reading the secret documents which are nothing but rubbish. So Thelemic sex magick is valid but not the Dionysian mysteries? Does that make a bit of sense to you???
“First, the Dionysian mysteries are a reflection of Rome at it’s most decadent, as Evola forthrightly pointed out. So Hermeticism and Dionysianism make even less sense.”
As said above, it’s important to use words precisely. As for the historical phenom. known as “Dionysian mysteries,” imported to Rome from the East, Evola certainly agreed with the Roman ‘establishment’ in suppressing the Bacchanals etc. However, he very clearly endorsed other Mystery cults, especially Mithras, which he not only considered a reasonable rival to Christianity but also preferable.
If by ‘Dionysian’ one means the use of such techniques as ‘corrosive waters” then even intoxication and disorder, however, had a place, although he wisely emphasizes the need for restraint and proper training:
“… the various drugs used today and created in laboratories correspond to drugs that were often used for “sacred” ends in primitive populations, according to ancient traditions. This is even true for tobacco; strong extracts of tobacco were used to prepare young Native Americans in their withdrawal from profane life to obtain “signs” and visions. A similar claim can be made for alcohol, within certain limits; we are aware of the tradition centered on “sacred beverages”, as in the use of alcohol in Dionysian and similar rituals. For example, alcoholic beverages were not prohibited in ancient Taoism: on the contrary, they were considered “life essences” inducing an intoxication that, like dance, could lead to a “magical state of grace”, sought by the so-called real men. In addition, the extracts of coca, mescal, peyote, and other narcotics have been, and often still are, used in the rituals of secret societies of Central and South America.” – Ride the Tiger, p. 166-170
As for compatibility with Hermeticism, both his Hermetic Tradition and Magic refer to instruction given by Narayana Swami in “the ingestion of certain substances.”
RE: Julian the Apostate
The irony here is that he is held up as a hero by the neo-pagans who claim to have the ability to detect the so-called “semitic element”. Yet Julian allied with the Jews against the Christians and even initiated a failed project to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. It’s time to leave it all behind.
In your last post you said that the Christian Middle Ages were “at least partially Traditional”. Now you claim that the Roman Church is a “fraud” which has never contained Traditional elements. You’re just grandstanding.
No, they were never in the Catholic Church which is a fraud and which has forever fought the true spirit of Christianity; but even less can anyone say they are here today in the Church. Failure to realize this is at the crux of our disagreement.
Two points, EXIT:
First, the Dionysian mysteries are a reflection of Rome at it’s most decadent, as Evola forthrightly pointed out. So Hermeticism and Dionysianism make even less sense.
Second, the harping on moralism and failures is a sign that you both do not understand either Catholic history or theology, and also that you appear to forget that again, what success can the heathens claim? If Christianity is dead, the requiem on heathenism sounded centuries ago, and it was sounded by Christianity. If “semetic” Catholicism is so “weak” the German/Roman Aryans either did not notice when they converted or were of even weaker constitution then we might suspect. Either way, the historical victory of Catholicism and its birthing of the Middle Ages contradicts the “failure” narrative, and I still have not seen a good reason as to what makes heathenism the panacea of European tradition other than as an imaginary construct. I guess Julian the Apostate’s reasoning comes into play here: “That which never happened is eternally true?”
EXIT,
The Christianity of the Middle Ages still exists, virtually, within the Catholic Church. The symbols, ideas, and institutions are still there. Where else are they?
Cologero has stressed rehabilitation over revolution. The first is an organic return to sources, pagan and Christian, which does not attempt to efface a millenia or two of European history. The second is a modern tactic which prefers to overthrow organic history in favour of ‘mechanical’, ‘life-like’ constructions.
No one doubts that Christianity was at least partially traditional, partial because Christian doctrine has always been incomplete. However, the dispute regarding Christianity depends very much on meaning, as you say. It is fruitless to discuss the Christianity of the Middle Ages, for Christianity today means something entirely different. Anyone who calls this religion his own and who wishes to have Hermetism superimposed on it will always be considered heretical and blasphemous by not only the Christian authorities but also the majority of Christians. THe question then becomes why exert effort to superimpose Hermetism on Christianity which has the least favorable exoteric form when the glory is so much greater if we work to preserve and revive European traditions, such as to take Hermetism and fuse it with the inherently shamanic Dionysian mysteries and legends which most likely served as the main inspiration for the Christian Gospel… Christianity doesn’t need preserving and the adoption of this tradition only furthers more confusion as it strays further and further away from the center, whereas the old ways are in dire need of preserving and restoring, which have the added benefit of renewing a truly Aryan code of virtue as opposed to the Semitic moralism which has absolutely failed our civilization the evidence of which is all around us. Since we all have vested interests in whatever exists in Western civilization there is no need for accusing people of trolling for simply stating their opinions.
“You refuse to adhere to the second and the third. You never deal with arguments being presented, and just force your view on others.”
This is laughable, Mark. You have refused to discuss the possibility of a ‘solar’ Christianity, and what’s more you’ve utterly failed even to notice the arguments you’re supposedly responding to in this post. Why do you insist on playing the victim?
I suggest you bring your argument here: Anti-semitism in the Tradition Catholic Far Right. You can make your case that the Traditional Catholic Far Right is actually pro-semitic. Let us know how it worked out for you.
I cannot tell if any of this was addressed to me. Apologies if it was.
I can see that I am being a “troll” because I would like to have an element of discourse ethics. I definitely see these as unreasonable principles
* The presupposition that participants in communicative exchange are using the same linguistic expressions in the same way
* The presupposition that no relevant argument is suppressed or excluded by the participants
* The presupposition that no force except that of the better argument is exerted
* The presupposition that all the participants are motivated only by a concern for the better argument
You refuse to adhere to the second and the third. You never deal with arguments being presented, and just force your view on others.