The quibbles I have with this essay pale in comparison with my overflowing admiration for, and enthusiastic agreement with it. I will say, though, with regard to the Church's "lost holiness", that the Church still has all the holiness it ever had: the holiness of the saints and artists, canonized, ignored or anathematized, who live in the Spirit of Christ. The rest of it has always been, remains, and always will be a blasphemy and a farce.
Oh man, that was awesome! The whole thing, but I just about jumped out of my chair for joy when you dropped the beautiful atom bomb of 1 Sam 8 on the whole thing -- I love it when people do that, and it happens too rarely. Have you read Jacques Ellul's "Subversion of Christianity"? That is a book that I try, but fail, to get people to read and talk about with me. If 1 Sam 8 is your jam (I call this impulse "the mystical anarchy of the Hebrews"), you might get a kick out of my crazy little essay, "Waving Farewell to Byzantium" (https://sabbathempire.substack.com/p/essay-10-waving-farewell-to-byzantium) for something in a similar vein to what you've done so beautifully here, but from the Orthodox side of things...
Yeah, Ellul's kind of like the Tasmanian devil of theology--something is definitely there, often a beautiful whirlwind, but definitely not "a still, small voice" and usually it's smashing way too much. Whenever I go near, though, the air gets clearer.
I loved your above essay. Throughout the entirety of it, particularly when you got to "Carpathian Orthodoxy" and "Wild Orthodoxy," my mind kept jumping back to this Richard Rohr quote that I just love and really just nicely sums up where I find myself in life now and joyfully so:
"To live on the edge of the inside is different than being an insider, a "company man" or a dues paying member. Yes, you have learned the rules and you understand and honor the system as far as it goes, but you do not need to protect it, defend it or promote it. It has served its initial and helpful function. You have learned the rules well enough to know how to "break the rules" without really breaking them at all. "Not to abolish the law but to complete it" as Jesus rightly puts it (Matthew 5:17). A doorkeeper must love both the inside and the outside of his or her group, and know how to move between these two loves."
Alas, the loss of beauty, incense, music and liturgy which is why most people are drifting away. The bonds of loving devotion are not strong enough in the face of institutional collapse.. 'The anaemic power' is a good way of describing it.
IMO the papacy sometime in the future will give its imprimatur to the Antichrist, the beast, as being the real deal, though a false Christ,, as the one who will supposedly bring peace and unity to this earth. The urge to empire with a divinely blessed head has deep roots - the Aztecs, Incas, Mayas, Rome, Babylon, The pharaohs, the Chinese emperor as the son of heaven, the various anointed kings of Europe, the Russian czars, the emperor of Japan who undergoes a ritual unification with the sun goddess, the caliphs of Islam, Napoleon of France, and on and on. The Antichrist system described in Revelation will be the final culmination of this and then “the kingdoms of the world will become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ” through Jesus, “the Lord of lords and King of kings” But for now his “kingdom is not of this world” and is known inside ourselves and among those who gather in faith, a kingdom of “rightwiseness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” Romans 14:17. I prefer the old English version of righteousness - rightwiseness, being rightwise with the Living God!
I like "harmony", these days (a point coined before by the commenter Graham over here): rightwiseness is to be in harmony with the grand song of the Lord of Song, as Leonard Cohen likes to call Him. And likewise, I prefer the word fidelity to "obedience": fidelity both as in honoring the covenant, and like a hi-fidelity record, being an image of God that faithfully reproduces the original sound.
Your mention of "the lust for an emperor" made me think briefly of Tomberg's essay on that tarot card. His romanticization of institutional power seems like his main weak point, as far as I can tell—and one he shares with Solovyov. I still can't get over how that guy decided to go on about how ROMA spelled backwards is AMOR, so ya see, the Catholic empire is about love! . . .
Also, I love that passage from 1 Samuel and just mentioned it to someone yesterday, apropos of their romanticization of the Romanovs.
Strategically, though, do you think Tomberg knew what he was doing? I have found that it has an effect on normie Catholics to say, "Pope John Paul II had that book on his nightstand, and Balthasar wrote a foreword for it. So hey, you don't like the Tarot?—it's not me you're arguing against, then." It seems like Tomberg did a great job as infiltrator, for Catholics who only respond to such appeals to authority.
The discussion may have faded, but I've been walking around debating with Tomberg, Illich, and Steiner, a debate much louder in my head since Covid (oh that terrible coin!) To both of you - have either of you read The Ninth Century and the Grail? There's a little paragraph at the end of one chapter which talks about transubstantiation. It's fascinating to me how the Reformation happens and the Eucharist is suddenly a complete after-thought. Meanwhile the Catholics continue to elevate it, but it seems forced to compete with the ecclesiastical hierarchy for central sacrament. If the transubstantiation of matter and metanoia are connected, what does that mean for authority in the world? Does the Vatican see vaccines as another sort of transubstantiation of matter, hence its worship? What does the worship of a false sacrament mean for the laity? Great post, Michael, looking forward to reading the book. Good to see the Anglo-American penchant for managing history receiving scrutiny.
I think Francis and almost all of the Vatican are part of the globalist cabal. The only sacraments they really believe in are prestige and power. One way to securing that is in convincing the faithful that access to the actual sacraments is through their power structure.
As a conceptual matter, I think that the visible Church per se is defined by the Eucharist. So if there's a Protestant church that doesn't have the real presence, then I consider that not so much a church but rather more of just a social club (which isn't bad in itself—social clubs can be great).
But that said, although I'm Eastern Catholic, I ultimately believe in the invisible Church, which I refer to as the Church of Magdalene. And the invisible Church is present wherever two together pray in His name, and wherever the Holy Ghost wishes to blow—He will not be constrained by the likes of us.
As for the vaccine, I don't think their view is all that complex; it's just the standard worldly understanding of the thing as a symbol of "compassion". It's not about a sacramental view of anything, and I'd say that to read any theology into it is to give them too much credit.
“America pursues a foreign, imperial policy that has been, from the outset, Britain’s” A much overlooked observation and the envy of Rome. If you wipe away the chest thumping pride and stare deeply into the black mirror of USA you will see a sparkling vision of the Royal Family staring back at you with sarcastic grin. KC3 is not the buffoon the tabloids make of him.
Old Russian proverb, “Once a colony, always a colony “.
The quibbles I have with this essay pale in comparison with my overflowing admiration for, and enthusiastic agreement with it. I will say, though, with regard to the Church's "lost holiness", that the Church still has all the holiness it ever had: the holiness of the saints and artists, canonized, ignored or anathematized, who live in the Spirit of Christ. The rest of it has always been, remains, and always will be a blasphemy and a farce.
I don't have a problem with the Church. I have a problem with the Institution. So we're in agreement!
Oh man, that was awesome! The whole thing, but I just about jumped out of my chair for joy when you dropped the beautiful atom bomb of 1 Sam 8 on the whole thing -- I love it when people do that, and it happens too rarely. Have you read Jacques Ellul's "Subversion of Christianity"? That is a book that I try, but fail, to get people to read and talk about with me. If 1 Sam 8 is your jam (I call this impulse "the mystical anarchy of the Hebrews"), you might get a kick out of my crazy little essay, "Waving Farewell to Byzantium" (https://sabbathempire.substack.com/p/essay-10-waving-farewell-to-byzantium) for something in a similar vein to what you've done so beautifully here, but from the Orthodox side of things...
I have read it. I like Ellul, but can't quite get past his extreme iconoclasm. And that's a great piece!
Yeah, Ellul's kind of like the Tasmanian devil of theology--something is definitely there, often a beautiful whirlwind, but definitely not "a still, small voice" and usually it's smashing way too much. Whenever I go near, though, the air gets clearer.
I've been meaning to read that book by Ellul, actually. I will do so, and then we can talk about it.
I loved your above essay. Throughout the entirety of it, particularly when you got to "Carpathian Orthodoxy" and "Wild Orthodoxy," my mind kept jumping back to this Richard Rohr quote that I just love and really just nicely sums up where I find myself in life now and joyfully so:
"To live on the edge of the inside is different than being an insider, a "company man" or a dues paying member. Yes, you have learned the rules and you understand and honor the system as far as it goes, but you do not need to protect it, defend it or promote it. It has served its initial and helpful function. You have learned the rules well enough to know how to "break the rules" without really breaking them at all. "Not to abolish the law but to complete it" as Jesus rightly puts it (Matthew 5:17). A doorkeeper must love both the inside and the outside of his or her group, and know how to move between these two loves."
Alas, the loss of beauty, incense, music and liturgy which is why most people are drifting away. The bonds of loving devotion are not strong enough in the face of institutional collapse.. 'The anaemic power' is a good way of describing it.
Time for a magical reimagination.
I see people doing this everywhere - when it is not attended to, they will always find it for themselves.
I so look forward to speaking with you.
Give us a couple of weeks to fettle ourselves and we will be better up for it!
IMO the papacy sometime in the future will give its imprimatur to the Antichrist, the beast, as being the real deal, though a false Christ,, as the one who will supposedly bring peace and unity to this earth. The urge to empire with a divinely blessed head has deep roots - the Aztecs, Incas, Mayas, Rome, Babylon, The pharaohs, the Chinese emperor as the son of heaven, the various anointed kings of Europe, the Russian czars, the emperor of Japan who undergoes a ritual unification with the sun goddess, the caliphs of Islam, Napoleon of France, and on and on. The Antichrist system described in Revelation will be the final culmination of this and then “the kingdoms of the world will become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ” through Jesus, “the Lord of lords and King of kings” But for now his “kingdom is not of this world” and is known inside ourselves and among those who gather in faith, a kingdom of “rightwiseness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” Romans 14:17. I prefer the old English version of righteousness - rightwiseness, being rightwise with the Living God!
I like "harmony", these days (a point coined before by the commenter Graham over here): rightwiseness is to be in harmony with the grand song of the Lord of Song, as Leonard Cohen likes to call Him. And likewise, I prefer the word fidelity to "obedience": fidelity both as in honoring the covenant, and like a hi-fidelity record, being an image of God that faithfully reproduces the original sound.
Your mention of "the lust for an emperor" made me think briefly of Tomberg's essay on that tarot card. His romanticization of institutional power seems like his main weak point, as far as I can tell—and one he shares with Solovyov. I still can't get over how that guy decided to go on about how ROMA spelled backwards is AMOR, so ya see, the Catholic empire is about love! . . .
Also, I love that passage from 1 Samuel and just mentioned it to someone yesterday, apropos of their romanticization of the Romanovs.
I'm right there with you.
Strategically, though, do you think Tomberg knew what he was doing? I have found that it has an effect on normie Catholics to say, "Pope John Paul II had that book on his nightstand, and Balthasar wrote a foreword for it. So hey, you don't like the Tarot?—it's not me you're arguing against, then." It seems like Tomberg did a great job as infiltrator, for Catholics who only respond to such appeals to authority.
The discussion may have faded, but I've been walking around debating with Tomberg, Illich, and Steiner, a debate much louder in my head since Covid (oh that terrible coin!) To both of you - have either of you read The Ninth Century and the Grail? There's a little paragraph at the end of one chapter which talks about transubstantiation. It's fascinating to me how the Reformation happens and the Eucharist is suddenly a complete after-thought. Meanwhile the Catholics continue to elevate it, but it seems forced to compete with the ecclesiastical hierarchy for central sacrament. If the transubstantiation of matter and metanoia are connected, what does that mean for authority in the world? Does the Vatican see vaccines as another sort of transubstantiation of matter, hence its worship? What does the worship of a false sacrament mean for the laity? Great post, Michael, looking forward to reading the book. Good to see the Anglo-American penchant for managing history receiving scrutiny.
I think Francis and almost all of the Vatican are part of the globalist cabal. The only sacraments they really believe in are prestige and power. One way to securing that is in convincing the faithful that access to the actual sacraments is through their power structure.
As a conceptual matter, I think that the visible Church per se is defined by the Eucharist. So if there's a Protestant church that doesn't have the real presence, then I consider that not so much a church but rather more of just a social club (which isn't bad in itself—social clubs can be great).
But that said, although I'm Eastern Catholic, I ultimately believe in the invisible Church, which I refer to as the Church of Magdalene. And the invisible Church is present wherever two together pray in His name, and wherever the Holy Ghost wishes to blow—He will not be constrained by the likes of us.
As for the vaccine, I don't think their view is all that complex; it's just the standard worldly understanding of the thing as a symbol of "compassion". It's not about a sacramental view of anything, and I'd say that to read any theology into it is to give them too much credit.
“America pursues a foreign, imperial policy that has been, from the outset, Britain’s” A much overlooked observation and the envy of Rome. If you wipe away the chest thumping pride and stare deeply into the black mirror of USA you will see a sparkling vision of the Royal Family staring back at you with sarcastic grin. KC3 is not the buffoon the tabloids make of him.
Old Russian proverb, “Once a colony, always a colony “.