Ecumenism and Vatican II for the tribal Catholic

I’m going to keep going with my tribal Christianity theme for a while.  If only I could get it to catch on, it might do some good.  After fleshing things out here, I’ll put up an article at the Orthosphere, which has somewhat higher traffic than this blog.

I’ve just added a review of Carl Schmitt’s The Concept of the Political to my book reviews.  It relates to this discussion, because tribal Christianity is about the legitimacy of the friend-enemy distinction as applied to the Church.  Christian intellectuals seem to pride themselves on not thinking in these terms.  External faiths and internal heresies are treated according to truth/orthodoxy categories as errors containing more or less impressive admixtures of truth.  Protestants, communists, and Kasperites are presumed to be well-meaning but slightly mistaken.  (Indeed, orthodox Catholics make so much of their supposed good intentions that those who don’t fall into their errors are morally suspect.  Thus, if people become Marxists because they care so much for the poor, then a burden of proof always falls onto non-Marxists to show that we don’t hate poor people.)  Alternatively, rival denominations may be treated under sacerdotal categories–the validity or invalidity of their rites, lack or presence of a valid apostolic succession, and the like.  Or errors may be treated according to moral categories, according to which sodomites are no greater concern than fornicators or masturbators, because each of these are sexual sins of comparable magnitude.  However, as this example shows, the apolitical categories leave out the most important thing.  The sodomite activist is not objectionable primarily because of his private errors, sins, or sacramental irregularities; he is a concern because he is the ENEMY.  He is a threat.  He means to persecute the Church, corrupt our children, to destroy us utterly.  In debating with him, we are not co-participants in a search for truth and virtue; it is warfare by other means.  The goal is not to convert an earnest seeker, but to neutralize a threat.

The accursed council, Vatican II, was not a dogmatic council or a pastoral council (it’s documents are pedagogically useless, i.e. far less easy to understand than the Baltimore Catechism) but a political council.  Its purpose was to designate friends and enemies.  Before the council, Protestantism and liberalism were regarded as enemies.  Vatican II decided that they were to be regarded as friends.  Because Vatican II could not change dogma, it could do nothing to reduce our disagreements with the world, but it could declare these to be friendly disagreements.  No dogma is involved in such decisions, but no infallibility attaches to it either.  Any Catholic may disagree, and tribal Catholics do strongly disagree with the decision to psychologically disarm before liberalism–a one-sided disarmament, because liberals continue to treat us as an enemy.  We condemn the council fathers according to our own particular category.  We don’t question their morals or their orthodoxy (although the influential periti were certainly heretics).  WE QUESTION THEIR LOYALTY.

Tribal Catholics don’t like ecumenism, because it’s usually just an excuse for Catholic-bashing from those who are supposed to be our leaders.  From liberal Catholic theologians, we hear about how much more enlightened the mainline Protestants are (although even they pale before the glory of atheists, Jews, and Muslims).  From conservative Catholic theologians, we hear about how much more enlightened the Eastern Orthodox are (although they again are not nearly as wonderful as the Jews).  I’m sick of it.  If the heretics and schismatics are so wonderful, go join them.

Ecumenism is pointless.  The traitors of Vatican II gutted the liturgy, gutted the churches, gutted catechesis, did everything they could to downplay the distinctively Catholic, all to no avail.  We’re no closer to unity with the Lutherans or anyone else than we were in 1959.  After all, Lutherans aren’t stupid.  Given that we teach that the Mass is a sacrifice, it doesn’t matter to them whether we say it often or seldom.  Their objection is that we believe it at all, since they think it false.  The only resolution is for them to change their minds, or for us to change ours.  But this would not be any kind of Catholic-Lutheran reunion; it would be mass conversion one way or the other.  Eastern Orthodox claim the filioque is heretical.  Either they’re wrong or we are.  There can be no reunion, ever.  Trying to force the issue just breeds resentment.

But there can be an alliance.

Tribal Catholics will have a generally positive attitude toward conservative Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Mormons.  We can afford to be much warmer toward them than non-tribalists, who must judge them according to their orthodoxy or sacramental status.  We, however, can recognize them as allies, but only because we see that liberalism is the sole great enemy of the Catholic Church in this age.  The Evangelicals and Mormons stood by us in the contraceptive mandate debate (far better than our own laity, I might add), even though they weren’t themselves involved.  That means a lot to a tribalist.  It seems to me a matter of honor that our bishops stick up for them when the liberals go after their bakers and florists.  Have our bishops done this?  Not that I’ve heard.  The Church’s “religious liberty” witness is in practice devoted to herself (and not even to Catholics as private individuals), and our bishops’ “bravo” rhetoric clearly signals that they want nothing to do with persecuted Christians.  A tribal Catholic recognizes this as a stain on the American Church’s honor.  Being a faithful ally matters a great deal to a Catholic tribalist.

52 Responses

  1. Some Christians feel a general positivity towards Ecumenism represents a deviation from a Traditional tenet, that the aggravation between religion and sect that existed in ages past was in fact integral to the survival of a particular faith, that any religion must always be insular and hostile to those outside of it.

    Through the Reactionary lens which has as its goal the counter-revolution for Tradition, I think this is a misconception which does fail to take into account how petty such differences were when compared to the GULF that exists between every Traditional religion and the Modernist Cult of Progress. Every religious grouping on earth could justly condemn the Cult of Progress as ‘pure evil’.

  2. Interesting point about Vatican II being a political council. Of course, as you point out in your review, for Schmitt the political can exist only where there is a real possibility of physical conflict. This in turn entails a readiness to kill and die on the part of a political entity’s members. Now, my guess is that the vast majority of American and European Catholics at the time of the council would not even consider killing or dying for the Church. Today, Pope Francis would probably denounce as a fanatical lunatic anyone who displayed such a willingness. The world’s religions are united in their attempt to bring peace, happiness, and equality to humankind after all.

    I wonder, then, if Vatican II wasn’t more of a final renunciation of the political, a public acknowledgment on the part of the Church of her status as a sub-political entity, equivalent to a trade union or something like that. In publicly surrendering any right to political decision once and for all, perhaps, the council fathers hoped that they could strike a deal with the liberal democracies of the West, which, having been recognized as truly sovereign, would now be trusted with both protecting the Church and disposing of her fate. In other words, the council fathers rejected the responsibility to make the friend/enemy distinction and swore fealty to the Church’s greatest enemy. No wonder the Church has devolved into yet another outlet for a vaguely spiritual version of the dominant liberal humanitarianism.

  3. Christ said to pray for enemies. He didn’t abolish the existence of the enemy category.

    Great post.

  4. Did you ever read Perelandra?

    The protagonist spends weeks debating the devil to no avail before realizing he should just hit him in the head with a rock.

  5. This post is incoherent. It is obvious that you’ve imbibed too much of Charlton’s “Mere Christianity” idiocy. Evangelicals and Mormons “allied” with us in the name of American liberalism not in the name of the Truth. When the Mormons reintroduce polygamy will you be standing with them then? At this point if Mormons are our great allies from whom we need to take theology lessons from than it is time to admit failure, acknowledge that none of this matters and go home.

    The Evangelicals and Mormons stood by us in the contraceptive mandate debate (far better than our own laity, I might add), even though they weren’t themselves involved.

    No they haven’t. Romney as governor was one of the first to force Catholic institutions to support contraceptives and abortifacients. Just a few weeks ago it was a Mormon judge (who’s appointment had the support of “conservative” Mormon senators) who forced the Little Sisters of the Poor to financially support contraception. Let’s not get started with the Evangelical nonsense. Evangelicals care much more about Israel than anything you care about. Did you forget that it was our modernist, Americanist bishops who insisted on including the Mormon cult in our grand cause of religious liberty?

    A tribal Catholic recognizes this as a stain on the American Church’s honor. Being a faithful ally matters a great deal to a Catholic tribalist.

    No it isn’t. We ought to rejoice and applaud the persecution of the Mormon cult, just like the early Christians praised Roman persecution of the gnostic or other heretical sects. You’re not much of a tribalist or traditionalist and are in fact little better than the other limp wristed conservative modernists like Chaput (who loves Mormonism and religious freedumb).

  6. We should rejoice when Protestants are persecuted by sodomites? This will supposedly make the Church stronger?

  7. @Bonald

    Much hinges on how ‘enemy’ is defined. I suggest that it is not a matter of disagreement (hardly anybody wholly agrees with anybody else, after all) – but the enemy is somebody who attacks you, who wages war on you.

    I think this makes matters a bit clearer. The Left is the enemy of Christians because it attacks Christianity and has been attacking Christianity for a very long time.

    (Indeed, the Left has defeated ‘official’ Christianity – which currently exists as a kind of Vichy regime or puppet government.)

    However, there is the problem of covert enemies – enemies who pretend not to be attacking or waging war, and secular Leftism/ Liberalism is one of these kinds of enemy. Indeed, the Left does not itself really understand that it is specifically anti-Christian, is built upon anti-Christianity more than upon anything else.

    For example, the Left simply cannot see the truly massive torment and slaughter of Bishops, Priests, Monks and devout laity in the Russian revolution as having been a deliberate and focused attempt at annihilation (what people nowadays tern genocide). They regard it as merely collateral damage from an ideological/ political difference.

    So, a tribe is united against an enemy who openly attack and explicitly wages war on Christians – and Christianity has often been united – and there is of course one enemy of exactly this type: all one has to do is believe what they say.

    But the prime enemy of secular Leftism is altogether a slipperier thing – an enemy who denies that they are an enemy, an enemy who does not even know that they are enemies – an enemy that reframes the attempt to annihilate Christianity under a variety of abstract universal concept – which only accidentally contingently happen to be interpreted to be applied to Christians but not other religions.

    At every stage there is a self-denial and also a public denial of any strategic intent to attack Christians. So Christians are put into the position of – as it were – telling, or persuading, dominant secular Leftism that it is our enemy – in the face of sincere protestations from Liberals that they are nothing of the sort!

    My understanding is that this strategy of denial evolved by a kind of natural selection over many generations, it is what works best against Christians – I mean Leftism evolved to be maximally lethal to Christianity in the context of what was a more-or-less Christian society – the weapons and defences of Leftism are all pointing at Christians (and this also perhaps explains why the Left is utterly helpless, suicidally helpless, against other religions, who attack from a different direction).

  8. Yes we ought to rejoice when our enemies fight each other. If you can join hands with Mormon cultists than you are no better than the Bishops in the last Synod that highlighted the “positive aspects” of homosexual relationships. Is it any wonder that Cardinal Kasper headed ecumenical efforts before joining on this most recent campaign to destroy Catholic doctrine?

  9. I think this makes matters a bit clearer. The Left is the enemy of Christians because it attacks Christianity and has been attacking Christianity for a very long time.

    Wow! What a *profound* insight this is! Really this comment like the others you dump here are so prosaic and airy it is such that one could interchange the word “leftist” with any other word and the script would read the same- there is no precision in your critique of leftism. You are not saying anything important so what is the point of wasting everyone’s time writing it?

    However, there is the problem of covert enemies – enemies who pretend not to be attacking or waging war, and secular Leftism/ Liberalism is one of these kinds of enemy.

    I am afraid you are the covert enemy. You pretend to be sympathetic but you really offer your own peculiar brand of modernism (you *are* in agreement with Modernists on practically every issue). We are at a crossroads, Charlton’s entire muddled philosophy threatens to flip traditionalism on its head. The choice is between an authentic understanding of tradition or a retreat into fantasy.

  10. Ita Scripta Est…

    Where does the genuine white Supremacist stand in your assessment?

  11. The great enemy of the Catholic Church in this or any other age is organized Jewry.

  12. I’m obviously not nearly as smart/educated/polished as the rest of you, so I beg your pardon. I don’t post here often.
    But….I thought we were supposed to make nice with our enemies, turning the other cheek, going the extra mile, etc. and that not to do so indicated a lack of faith. God will put our enemies down for us, all we have to do is be nice to them.
    Am I missing something?

  13. I thought we were supposed to make nice with our enemies, turning the other cheek, going the extra mile, etc. and that not to do so indicated a lack of faith. God will put our enemies down for us, all we have to do is be nice to them.

    Other than countless Christian groups for thousands of years DID NOT DO THAT, not a thing.

    You either have to argue that the medieval European nobility, the Byzantines, the Victorian British, and the Holy Roman Empire were “not really Christians”, which pretty much means nobody ever has been a “real Christian”, or you have to admit that it is possible for Christians to arm themselves and fight their enemies rather than lie down, surrender, and “leave everything to God”.

    (Were you being sarcastic? Can’t tell.)

  14. Before the council, Protestantism and liberalism were regarded as enemies. Vatican II decided that they were to be regarded as friends. Because Vatican II could not change dogma, it could do nothing to reduce our disagreements with the world, but it could declare these to be friendly disagreements.

    Historical footnote. This is precisely the approach that the Leftists in the US government took towards the Soviet Union. “Detente” meant that the Soviets were not enemies, but friends, and in practice no action the Soviets took, no matter how outrageous, ever induced the advocates of detente to admit that detente had failed and that the Soviets were enemies and should be treated as such. If the Soviets escalated their aggression, the detenteniks insisted that we hadn’t appeased them enough and we should make more concessions.

    A bedrock principle of the Left is “no enemies on the Left”.

    The fact that Vatican II designated the Left as “not an enemy” indicates very clearly that the participants in the council were Leftists.

    Liberal Catholics need to realize that you cannot appease an enemy – this will not make him your friend, but only cause him to demand more concessions. But, being Leftists themselves, liberal Catholics will almost certainly neither realize this not act on it.

  15. On a certain level, I agree with some of your discussion of Tribal Catholicism – especially the necessity of identifying, if not the enemy, at least the Other, “he who is not of me and mine”.

    However, I think there needs to be a bit more finesse here. Ever Other (whether specifically an enemy, e.g. leftism, or your proposal of an “ally”, e.g. conservative Orthodox, Protestants, Mormons et al.) must not only be seen as Other but also as potential convert.

    This, I think, is the grain in a strictly tribal interpretation of Catholicism. Catholicism is universal in so far as it is a revelation meant for all peoples, “Go forth and make disciples of all Ethos” (far too many have misinterpreted this universalism as accepting of all peoples and things, it’s the other way around). The apostles are not directed to simply set up their tribe and, if anyone wants in, catechize them, but to go out and bring peoples in (convert the nations, not just individuals).

    I think, we this Tribal Catholicism idea, your simply trying to remake the wheel. Though I would content that the goal is not a Catholic Tribe but a Catholic Empire. Historically, the Church had this in declaring the boundaries of Christendom with the corollary of “mission territories”. Mission territories were not only places where missionaries went, they were districts of the world which were in need of colonization, conversion, and ultimately incorporation into the Empire.

    The grain in this theory is that the empire is, well, collapsed. We no longer have any claimants to the HRE (not heirs, but people actually claiming to sit upon the authority of the throne) or anything equivalent. However, it is important to recognize that the throne of Christendom is not dependent upon any earthly edifice (though it does properly manifest as such).

    I think this tension is what needs to be more discussed, the tension between the vision of Imperial Christendom (with the colonization and incorporation of the nations it entails) and our current return (collapse) to a pre-Carolingian and pre-Constantinian sort of Imperial Christianity. What does that look like?

    The tribal impetus helps some – specifically in recognizing that if one is Catholic, one is NOT x, y, or z (specifically leftist/secularist). However, one cannot allow this to devolve into a tribal form that omits or frustrates the imperialistic impulse (go out and convert all Ethos) – one cannot settle for having enemies and allies. Our enemies are those we seek to conquer. Our allies are, well, also those we seek to conquer. Conquest means, ideally, a conversion of heart. But in this vale of tear, a little blood and steel makes way for that.

    I would recommend, for the Catholic, one look more into the Social Teaching of the Church. We tend to forget how radically imperialistic those documents are – they are calls to conquer the social domain for Christ. Their practicalities may look lefty, but that’s only because many manifestations of the right, especially in America, are far too beholden to freedom-license as a value, which is a chief sin to any right thinking Catholic.

    I guess I can sum up my critique as a need to hold onto the militant proselytizing that is at the heart of Christianity – or in more Imperial terms, the call towards conquest. Tribal Catholicism gives some direction to that, vis-a-vis identifying the boundaries of Christendom, but it cannot allow us to forget that the boundaries are meant to encroaching.

    And yes, our current “allies”… well, I’ll just come out and say it. Mormons et al., we pray for your conversion to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Until then, you are in mission territory. We’ll send peaceful missionaries unless we need the knights (once we get back to that point).

  16. Great post. The left has altered the landscape so much, it is sometimes hard to see where the median actually lies.

    Bonald’s post balances the position perfectly:

    The battle is of those of the light of Christ versus those who desire to extinguish it. Arguing that we should destroy others who also share in the light, however small, is to fall into a Satanic trap. I pray that the Holy Spirit may lead us to do God’s will in charity.

  17. This is no middle ground and there is no such thing as a deracinated Christian… Tribal Catholic = white Supremacist. The enemy hates the white Supremacist BECAUSE *you* Mr. Tribal Catholic, are TRULY, a white Supremacist. And so is the tribal Protestant. All real white Christians are white Supremacists. We are ALL fighting for genuine free will. The Litmus Test cometh for good white Christians.

  18. @ Tarl
    TCA’s comment was not sarcastic. He was asking a valid and important question. I think your answer was not complete. I could, for example, answer you with Chesterton:
    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.”
    One could assume, for example, that the groups of Christians you cite were imperfect or less than ideal Christians (as we all are).
    I don’t disagree with you, I just think there’s more to the answer than historical empiricism.
    My best attempt at an answer to TCA is that Christ was speaking about not lowering oneself to the standards of your enemy (btw, He doesn’t say “make nice” with your enemy-the very concept of enemy implies an adversarial relationship – we see adversarial relationships described in Paul’s Epistles). Christianity embraces the concept of striving for personal holiness. It seems that a significant part of charity is its effects on the believer practicing it as indicated by the fact that Christ’s ministry wasn’t one big, supernatural soup-kitchen.

  19. You bander about words that have no clear meaning. “White supremacist” in common parlance is “hatred of everyone not white.” Rather a Catholic desires all nations of the earth to embrace God’s truth and follow His will.

    At one point Europe embodied Christianity and was the civilization doing God’s will, but through corruption, sin, and evil has fallen away – it is more anti-Christian and anti-God than a people embracing Him.

    European descendants are, as a whole, in the same position as the Jews. We have known the Messiah but rejected Him. Were not many of the Jews prouder of their ethnicity than of accepting that gentiles too could become Children of God?

    Thordaddy suggests the rallying call of pan-European “white” tribalism should be the focus, but instead we *must* do God’s will, and only then will our family’s be blessed. Let those who can fight the spiritual battle within themselves and their family, and to unashamedly reject the moral relativism, do it! Indeed, Europe’s civilization celebrated our Lord, and we may find in its history what was best once…

    Love of God is first, love of neighbor only follows as an aspect of Love of God, and you may find more white brothers and neighbors fallen than doing God’s will. It is not a people who in unity can reach salvation, but whose leaders are utterly corrupt, and must be reached as individual souls.

  20. Bonald writes:
    > If the heretics and schismatics are so wonderful, go join them.

    Can’t the ecumaniacs & co. be so seldom seen to actually join their glorified group precisely because they are ‘tribal Catholics’ of a kind? Certainly not in the sense described here, but it appears as though they felt a necessity to stay with the Catholic tribe no matter how much they would otherwise criticise it. As if the Church was a nation, an enthos, in which case it would be a no-brainer that once a Catholic, always a Catholic. And as many Westerners nowadays, they take pride in hating and calumniating their own nation.

  21. Organizations are more easily destroyed from the inside.

  22. And the heretics probably believe it’s that …. an organization ….. not the spotless bride of Christ.

  23. Hopefully, the Catholic Church can have an aliance with the Eastern Orthodox Church, and less schism between Christian believers in the future. What do you think of this possibility, Bonald?

  24. Thomas says…

    “You bander about words that have no clear meaning. “White supremacist” in common parlance is “hatred of everyone not white.” Rather a Catholic desires all nations of the earth to embrace God’s truth and follow His will.”

    Huh? Not only is it clear that the modernist concept of “white supremacist” was deliberately associated with hateful white degenerates for the purpose of soiling the phrase, but it is equally self-evident that a genuine white Supremacist is a white man who believes in objective Supremacy, ie., Perfection… Er, He who wills all right. So FROM A view from the left, white Christian = white Supremacist = white degenerate. And “good” white Christians SPEND ALL THEIR TIME arguing WITHIN this perverted liberal frame DESPERATELY trying to prove that they are not degenerate like those “white supremacists.” But all that is proven is one’s total submission to the Liberated paradigm. All that is proven is that one is entirely deracinated and in a pathological state of mind. All that is proven is that one EXPLICITLY DENIES being a Christian when he publicly denies being a Supremacist. Think about it real hard. These are the facts on the ground. The Litmus Test is coming for good white Christians FIRST. And a knee-jerk disassociation from the “racist” white Christian with an instinct to fight for their inalienable right to strive towards Supremacy seems asinine in the extreme.

  25. Oh what the hell, I’ll bite.

    The common sense definition of white supremacist to me has always been an America or Africa dwelling white who, given the fact that they had to live in proximity to blacks, wanted to maintain rule over them to achieve social separation and to curb undesirable black behavior-nothing to apologize over.

  26. Bruce…

    WE all understand the RELATIVIST conception of “white supremacist” and its multiple real world ideological applications THAT ALWAYS SERVE to benefit the radical transgressors.

    WHAT IS INEXPLICABLE is a white Christian’s OBLIVIOUSNESS to an ABSOLUTE conception of white Supremacist. IT MUST EXIST if you are to be so slavishly submissive to the relativist conception. It must! And your obliviousness MUST BE PHONY at this point.

  27. Thordaddy, could you provide any sources where anyone else has ever used your definition of white supremacist?

  28. Michael H…

    No.

    Your point though?

    How about *you* provide an ABSOLUTE conception of white Supremacist INSTEAD?

    Come on… You can do it… Step out of that phony “Matrix” contrived by your “intellectual” betters.

    Next, define for us the deracinated “Catholic” and his tribal alliance?

  29. Michael H…

    Deracinated “Christianity” is self-annihilating and the empirical evidence is literally everywhere. There is no Christian alive in the West whose Christianity wasn’t formed within the radically liberated racial milieu. There is no Christianity OUTSIDE the West willing, able or capable of saving Christianity within the West. In fact, all the evidence suggests that nonwhite Christians are completely indifferent to the plight of white Christians. The mainstream “white Christian” is anti-white Supremacy AND HE ESCAPES ACCOUNTABILITY BECAUSE all are in on the deception INCLUDING the smartest and most traditional of “Christians.” How is this to be explained is the way all things are now explained in our time. Such intellectual and traditional “Christians” WHO CAN NOT OR WILL NOT accede to the absolute conception of white Supremacist HAVE SIMPLY SUBMITTED to the zeitgeist.

  30. The white man is a head divided. His venture into the heart of Christ is unmatched AS WELL as his ventures into the depths of the abyss. He has on his plate only two entrées. Radical autonomy and self-annihilation or white Supremacy and a sustainable tribal Christianity capable of transmitting the Truth and a supreme culture AND DEFENDING both in perpetuation.

  31. In absolute terms, a white Supremacist JUST IS a more particular type of Christian than just the Christian. So from the perspective of the genuine white Supremacist the distinction between traditional Christian and liberal Christian is without difference. Both DEFINE their type of Christianity by a comittment to deracination and its logical consequence in the elevation of radical sexual autonomy, ie., “right” to “love” whomever one pleases. To the white Supremacist, a “right” to “love” whomever one pleases rooted in the legitimization of the deracinated state is absolutely self-annihilating. A “Christian” who practices self-annihilation as a matter of faith is no real Christian. There simply is no such thing as deracinated Christian.

  32. The earliest usage of the phrase that I can think of is in Lothrop Stoddard’s 1921 book. Of course, he used it unapologetically.

  33. Mostly agree. I don’t think Mormons, Protestants, and the like are long term allies, although I wouldn’t go so far as to say we should rejoice at their persecution by sodomites.

    P.S. Must you allow Thor to derail this thread too?

  34. Dammit, I’m away one day and another thread derailed.

    NEW COMMENT POLICY: Any comment discussing Thordaddy’s definition or concept of “white supremacy” will be deleted.

  35. You “Christians” are lost. DOA. You cannot even count on yourself as your own ally. You apparently have no allies and desire no allies even those allies who absolutely believe in the Christian assertion. The critique of the alt-rite, even as odiously liberationist as that sphere goes, is absolutely spot on. Mainstream “Christians” are deracinated self-annihilators and provide no real hope for the West.

  36. TD – It is a matter of priorities. Generally, “God, Family, Country” in that order. Each one has a priority, and the focus should be God. Race exists as a half-way point between extended family and ones nationality. That is, one should primarily be a God supremacist.

  37. Some good points from Tomas and Bruce. That we must also regard liberals and Protestants as potential converts reminds me of one of my quibbles with Schmitt. He says we are to love our personal enemies rather than our political group’s enemies. I would accept this only if it is also emphasized that the group’s enemies are always other groups. Thus “love thine enemies” does not mean that a German must love France (the nation). However, it does mean he must be willing to love individual Frenchmen, because a Frenchman is more than just a Frenchman. Similarly, we may hope that individual liberals and Protestants will convert and save themselves. However, liberalism itself will always be an enemy (I would say THE enemy), while Protestant bodies–because they have preserved so much of the faith–may be either friend or enemy to the Catholic Church, depending on circumstances.

    It Scripta Est, your presence here is valued, but I will expect greater courtesy from you toward other commenters in the future.

  38. I think you ought to enforce that policy.

  39. Sorry if I set up a straw man, but it’s not clear that most people will understand you as you mean.

  40. Bonald… You and your intellectual cadre of Christians are the ones in actual need of conversion. Your deracinated state is pathological. You are literally shunning one who will FIGHT for the idea that The Perfect Man most certaintly existed and established the order of man WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY writing about converting enemies into allies. It’s bizarre to say the least.

  41. TD – I think you misunderstand.

  42. Thomas…

    Misunderstand what… Old Christian boomers have no will to fight and certainly wouldn’t preach fighting to young Christians? What don’t I understand about the eventual demise of the white Christian?

  43. It’s insane…

    The white Christian is dying
    That’s why “we” are here
    The white Christian is dying
    And he does not even care
    The white Christian is a self-annihilator…
    Call him a Supremacist
    And get a zombie stare
    The white Christian is dead
    And just a Christian instead…
    No better off…
    Won’t bleed red
    Even the Western Christian is dead
    Won’t fight with his fists
    Thinks he’s all head
    Intellectual Christian, so it’s said
    Can’t comprehend absolutes?
    Can jump through liberal hoops
    Weave, duck, juke…
    Set reality back on its feet
    With your Christian tribal group?

  44. You fellows are literally more willing to fight the application of an exacting label than to fight an enemy that deceptively labels you in such a way as to believe he has you publicly deny your faith… Because he does!!!

    If the enemy has you ADMIT that you are a deracinated “Christian” THEN he has proved you not a REAL Christian AS there is no such thing as a deracinated “Christian.” Such a thing BY VIRTUE OF DERACINATION is a radical liberal.

    This whole exercise is a prelude to the The Global Litmus Test and all have failed with their essential denial of a Christian faith. All have explicitly touted their submission to the liberated frame.

  45. TD – I only mean that you misunderstand my position. I don’t disagree with you in the way you claim. I don’t think Bonald does either.

  46. […] Ecumenism and Vatican II for the tribal Catholic […]

  47. […] talks about Ecumenism and Vatican II for the tribal Catholic. It is […]

  48. A great read: http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1951-the-way-it-used-to-be

    “Catholicism is like a city destroyed by war. Most of its inhabitants have fled, and those who remain are picking through the ruins trying to salvage things not too battered to be useful. … Now that the heart is broken, Catholicism is an act of the will performed out of honor, and out of love, but it is love among the ruins.”

  49. @ Proph: Your quote is an apt description of Protestantism too.

  50. […] Tribal Catholics don’t like ecumenism, because it’s usually just an excuse for Catholic-bashing from those who are supposed to be our leaders. From liberal Catholic theologians, we hear about how much more enlightened the mainline Protestants are (although even they pale before the glory of atheists, Jews, and Muslims). From conservative Catholic theologians, we hear about how much more enlightened the Eastern Orthodox are (although they again are not nearly as wonderful as the Jews). I’m sick of it. If the heretics and schismatics are so wonderful, go join them. […]

  51. […] according to a third, completely independent, category–the political categorization of friend vs. enemy.  The friend/ally is not necessarily ideologically correct, the enemy/threat is not necessarily […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: