Baby Jesus Or King Christ

baby-and-king1.jpg

Who do men say that I am?

When Jesus asked that question, he was speaking to his disciples, a group of men struggling with the identity of the man they were following. In modern times, the question is still relevant and might be more pertinent than ever. Christianity is predicated on the identity of Christ and that identity drives the doctrines and actions of its followers.

There has emerged in modernity two identities of the man from Galilee. One is Jesus and the other is Christ. Initially, this sounds strange. Jesus Christ is the full title of the man who died on a cross and was resurrected three days later. How can those names be separated? The Church has indeed done that very thing.

These two views are symbolized by how Christianity is viewed. The faith is centered on Jesus Christ, set between the Old Testament and the New Testament. It is this idea that reveals the two views.

In one view, the Church is a cradle and set in the bottom of its boundaries is the baby Jesus. Here, the innocent gentleness of an infant is emphasized. He is vulnerable, swaddled in comfort and safety, and is bereft of the dirtiness of the world around him. Wide-eyed wonder and purest joy shine is his eyes and wordless gestures.

This view of a child is very appealing. The baby Jesus has unconditional acceptance of everyone and everything, an open and unlimited love. Here is an infant, weak and vulnerable, safe and serene. There is nothing here that might weigh on the shoulders or prick the side with a thorn. In the cradle is a Jesus who is small and needs Christian love and thrives on unending affection. Baby Jesus knows nothing of being a man, only of being a Mother’s child. There is no masculinity or femininity in him. He has not entered into churches and learned doctrines and so knows nothing of controversy or social issues. As an infant, he is infinitely approachable.

In the other view, the Church is a mountain and set at its pinnacle is a throne and on that throne is Christ the king.

This view is far less appealing. Christ is a grown man, hardened by the realities of life and steeled with the purpose of his heavenly Father. He knows the dirtiness of real life and the suffering visited by spiritual malevolence (temptation). The scars of His determined submission to the authority of his Father are seen in His hands, His feet and His side. Some have been saved by Him and others damned to judgment. Christ knows war and violence. To approach Him is to approach one who has the authority to grant life and take life, to bring blessings and inflict curses. His place is not safe nor is it comfortable. Everything is His to give and take as He sees fit. He is strong, invulnerable and unmovable. There are no rights or autonomy before His throne.

The first impulse is to reconcile the two symbols, to say that the man is both Jesus and Christ, both the infant and the king. The problem with such moderation is twofold. First, when Jesus was born, He began His progression from a child to an adult and it was as an adult that He was given his mission. Second, when He was resurrected, His was not the body of an infant, but that of the man He was when he died on the cross. It was as an adult male that Jesus ascended into heaven and is seated on His throne.

Among Christian men, there is a crisis of adulthood, where adolescent boys grow into adolescent men and then marry women in hopes of finding direction in life. They are incapable of governing themselves and look toward others, especially women, to govern them. The symbol of Baby Jesus is ultimately a place for women and children, where women raise children in safety, and this is where adolescent men long to be.

However, in order to move into adulthood, an adolescent boy must leave his mother’s world, leave behind the cradle, and begin the hard and arduous climb up the mountain to the place of authority where Christ grants men their purpose and authority to carry it out. It is not a place for women and children, but for men. Christ does call women in service to Him, but it is to men that authority over families and churches, over women and children, is given.

More and more Christianity, even the conservative branches, are growing sympathetic to the identity of Jesus the infant and structuring itself accordingly. The identity of Christ the king has fallen on hard times. Weakness in the church culture is manifested by a perpetual move toward an adolescent understanding of who the person of Jesus Christ is. Instead of seeing Christ as above the church reining with authority, the Church is seen as the cradle of a weak and vulnerable infant named Jesus. Not viewing Christ as an adult male king ruling over the church also removes the idea that adult male Christians should have authority over family and church. Authority and equality cannot coexist.

This is all a reflection of an adolescent church culture. Christian men need to leave behind adolescence and move into adulthood, climb up that mountain to the throne of Christ and serve Him alone. From that culture, the Church can then grow up.

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Blackmail Of The Roses

Blackmail of the Sexes.jpg

If a man were to open his bible and read the various admonitions to Christians concerning husbands and wives, he would notice that they are voluntary in nature. Husbands are not told to force their wives to submit and wives are not told to force their husbands to love them. The love of the husband and the love of the wife are to be given freely. This makes sense given that an action done under threat is not an act of love.

Even though the Christian family is being dissolved in the countries of the Occident, men and women are still seeking the love and submission family arrangement from each other.  They have separated from each other and chosen paths that are meant to force the other to fulfill their family role.

The dominant sex is women choosing the State as their source of blackmail when dealing with men. With the legal system backing their right to no fault divorce and favoring them in cases of child custody and alimony, women are now able to force men to love them. Men marry them and live devoted, passive lives under the threat that if they displease their wives, they may very well lose half of their material possessions in a divorce and be enslaved to the wronged female through alimony.

Those men who choose not enter into marriage to avoid this threat have several options. They can marry an non-occidental woman from cultures where women are less empowered or they can simply live life as a bachelor, interacting with women through random sexual encounters. A portion of men have chosen enter the porn industry where their beefed bodies are used in a pseudo-violent sexuality portrayed through numerous scripted scenarios where actors and actresses play their illicit roles. In these filmed and financed encounters, men are in positions to dominate, to force women into submissive states where their pleasure is given priority. Regardless of what path a man chooses, the threat is the same. They are threatening to withhold their money and strength in an effort to blackmail woman into submission.

Women use the power of the law to blackmail men into giving them the love they want. Men use the power of money to blackmail women into giving them the submission they want.

What neither is doing is humbling themselves before God and entering voluntarily into His call to marriage and family. In such a place, the man might not always be a loving a husband and the wife would lack the legal power that could force him to love her. The woman might not always be submissive and the husband could not use his financial power to force her to submit. There is fear and fear feeds pride.

What there is not is faith and only faith can truly forge a genuine marriage and provide men and women the submission and love each crave and need.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

To Give Or Deny

To Give Or Deny.jpg

As part of my conversion to the Catholic Church, I’ve begun the work of organizing my money to both be more responsible, but also include charitable giving in my budget. In my Protestant past, my efforts to tithe were sporadic and more often than not I found something better to do with my money than the donation plate, even if it meant I was “robbing God.”

However, I have again run into an issue concerning money and the Church. No doubt the Catholic Church is in a weakened state and I confess that though my faith was strengthened by my conversion, it was not strengthened as much as I would have hoped. Weak homilies, video presentations on donating to the local archdiocese during Mass, and immigrant African priests who sing “If you’re happy and you know it” during Mass (yes, really) are just a few of the experiences that have weakened my convictions and make devotion that much harder. Yet, I feel a sense of duty to financially support the Church to which I have sworn fealty.

In this struggle, I find that The Hirsch Files has asked the question of why Catholics have reduced their tithing. One commenter asked, “… why faithfully give money to a group working against your faith?”

So the issue for me is, should I support the Catholic Church in its weakened state knowing that my contributions will mostly likely be used to further the weakness or do I withhold my support?

The first immediate response is a pseudo monastic option where I both withdraw all support by not giving financially nor giving of my time past what is absolutely required. If there is an illness in the Church, than continued financing of it by own hand makes me complicit and a poor manager.

The second option calls me to give in an act of faith, trusting that Christ will correct His Church. From this stance, money and time given are given more for Christ’s sake than the Church’s. Devotion and loyalty are maintained and put into practical action, even in the worst of times.

At this season in my life, I do not have access to Traditional Latin Mass or one of the breakaway parishes that have deliberately worked to resist the modernization and weakness in the Church. So I must engage in the parish I am attending.

Turning toward Tradition and Scripture, I came across the offering of the widow in Luke.

[Jesus] looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury; and he saw a poor widow put in two copper coins. And he said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all the living that she had.”

I wonder if that poor widow considered the Temple life of that time to be corrupt (as Jesus declared it to be). If she did not believe it to be corrupt then she was giving out duty and faith. But if she did believe it to be corrupt, then her faith in God still shone through and Jesus made note of it. There was something beyond the money that mattered.

So I ponder, should I give my tithe to the Church, knowing it is in a poor shape or should I deny it? Which is an act of faith? Which is true to God?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Rediscovering Divine Revelation

 

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

In the days before I converted to Catholicism I wrestled with a simple, but profound question. Did the Traditions of the Church come from God or from Man? After examining the evidence as well as working through several other philosophical thoughts I came to conclusion that, yes, the Traditions of the Roman Catholic Church did come from God. They have divine origins and were given through divine revelation. And since the Traditions were divine in nature, so were the scriptures that the Church gave the world.

In the twenty-first century, basing one’s core presumptions on divinely revealed knowledge is considered not much different from tribal voodoo men who believe in magical sticks and stones. There is, even among the voices calling for a revised Western Civilization, a sense there may be a God, but man is essentially on his own. The current clash of globalism and nationalism falls into a conflict between atheistic and deistic philosophies, respectively.

These materialistic views of life are not going to be effective in the long-term since it was the rejection of divine revelation that gave rise to the zealous devotion to the sciences which has caused much of the current confusion. Man stopped believing in God and now believes in anything.

Divine revelation is important because it moves the cause of the preservation of Western Civilization from a mere product of genetics and chance to a transcendent calling to a higher moral order. The entire concept of civilization is the work of elevating man from being nothing than an animal driven by primal instinct to being a creature of a higher order, an order that is supernatural and divine.

If there is an underlying question that pushes the pursuit of civilization, it is whether man can survive as an animal. On the one hand, the answer is that man, being a product of genetics, must survive as an animal and to civilize him is to kill him. On the other hand, the answer is that man, being created by divine will, faces a slow decline toward extinction without civilization.

This is more than merely assimilating the concept of God into an already materialistic thought process, as if God was just another category of imagined characters in a narrative. Rather it is the issue of belief, conviction, and committed faith in something that cannot be seen with the eyes or touched with the hands.

Without divine revelation and the devotion of belief in it the push to preserve the West will become just another manifestation of the atheistic thought that has come to dominate the minds of the twenty-first century. It is not enough to save the cathedral for the sake of the architecture and intellectual symbolism. To truly save the cathedral and the civilization birthed by it, man must believe without doubt that therein lies an altar and at that altar he can meet with God.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Civilization Or Christendom

Civilization or ChristendomAmong the numerous voices advocating for the revitalization of masculinity, dismantling of disproven visions of social engineering, and the restoration of the West, I cannot but help notice that many of these voices are atheist, advocates of unfettered sexual experience, and, sometimes, even homosexual. What there is little of are arguments from a generally Christian perspective and specifically a Roman Catholic perspective.

This is understandable as Christianity in the West is horribly anemic, compromised, and reduced to wandering rebels without a clue. Even the vaunted Catholic Church seems to be doing its hardest to deny the words of Christ declaring that nothing would ever prevail against it. Some effort is being made to assure men that Christianity is not just for women and children, but no effort is being made to deal with the causes of what men believe.

There are two perspectives of the West. First is the view that advocates for Western Civilization. The other advocates for Western Christendom.

The Western Civilization perspective views everything in a timeline that covers ancient cultures and civilization and includes Greek wisdom, Roman ingenuity, Christian morals, and Enlightenment-era advances in science. This perspective is, by its nature, atheistic. There may be invocations of “God” as an abstract religious concept, but no genuine belief in things supernatural is required. Civilization is a product of race, culture, and experience and the rediscovery of a worldview embracing these foundational elements of knowledge is said to be the key to saving the West from extinction.

The Western Christendom perspective also recognizes ancient civilizations as well as the realities of race and culture. However, it holds that a core source of the most important knowledge was given by Divine Revelation. Not only is there a God, but this God gave to Man unique knowledge that he could not have gleaned on his own though merely materialistic means. These divine sources include Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

The reason why one view is humanistic and the other theistic began when the historic Western Church was rejected at the Reformation and developed through the Enlightenment where Man discovered permission to  rebel against God Himself. Darwin allowed thinkers to redefine Man’s beginnings. Freud allowed them to redefine Man’s present. Marx redefined Man’s future. The humanist holy trinity was established and the new cathedral began construction.

The theistic view declares that the divinely revealed knowledge is not only superior to all other knowledge, but vital to the survival of Man and the longevity of whatever he may build on that divine knowledge, such as Western Christendom.

At this moment, the two views seek something similar, the preservation of a Western world. Soon, though, the Christian and the atheist are going to have to compete over who will rule a renewed West. Given that Christianity offers a devotion to something divine and this devotion may be the only thing to stop the Islamic conquest of the West, Christendom may prevail. Until then, the West must endure a weak Church caught up in an atheist civil war.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Don’t Forget To Live

Don't Forget To LiveCultural and political causes are so numerous, there might be a vending machine market for them. The drama of modern discourse is a whirlwind of news, blogs, and tweets that carries enough with it to feed an internet junkie all day every day. At least a video game has something resembling a beginning, a middle, and an end.

There is nothing wrong with believing in a cause or jumping into the debate. A good Catholic is not going to simply sit by and allow matters to run wild without a warning that something is very wrong. In that sense, there is work to be done.

But, there is the temptation to pursue the cause merely for the thrill of the fight. Fevered typing on a keyboard in heated debate with someone somewhere out there on the information super highway easily devolves into a case of virtual road rage.

Writing or Crisis Magazine, Bishop James D. Conley states

My good friend Chris Stefanick, a wise speaker and author, wrote last week that we should “read less news,” and “read more Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.” He’s right. We won’t be happier, or wiser, or more peaceful because we consume more of the “age of noise” than we need.

Americans are obsessed with consuming news and controversy because politics is where they derive their identity and morality. In the noise they seek God and fail to find happiness. And happiness is an important facet of the Catholic life.

The Beatitudes respond to the natural desire for happiness. This desire is of divine origin: God has placed it in the human heart in order to draw man to the One who alone can fulfill it (CCC 1718).

I’m all for pursuing the cause of a Traditional Catholic faith and for exploring the political theories of the Alt-Right, but these are the effect and not the cause. What I ultimately seek is to find fulfillment as best I can of the natural desire for happiness. Not only that, but to try to point to others where happiness is found and expose the destructive roots of false happiness. The idea of happiness sounds sugary and childish, but that is only because the modern lusts have lied to men about where true happiness is.

As of the writing of this article, America is still essentially a peaceful nation. There are no major wars or disasters afflicting its citizens. This I believe is a grace from God and I want to be grateful for it by avoiding the temptation of obsessive misery that comes from constant pursuit of controversy.

In my desire to fight, I should not forget to live.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A Truly Unpopular Traditionalism

Unpopular TraditionThe Unpopular Thought

The great spirit of the modern age is one of relaxed morals and especially of relaxed devotion to things ancient, sacred, and supernatural. To be a modern Catholic is to be laid back about those things closest to and most important about the faith. In a moment of needed clarity, Davis M.J. Aurini shines light on why the acknowledgement of Christ is so unimportant in today’s Catholic Church.

It’s used to be that the Church was where you got your sense of meaning, your identity. It was the absolute. Whereas the politics, it’s like your opinion, man. These days we are deriving our identity, our morality, and our sense of valuation from the political sphere. And your religion, like, that’s just your opinion, man.

I have come to believe that a major reason why Catholic identity has moved away from the Roman Church to the American body politic is because many have been convinced of a simple philosophical concept. All things are naturally equal.

If all things are naturally equal, then inequality is a social construct. In this utopian paradigm, claims of superiority are man-made and not in line with reality. The idea that God is greater than Man is an ancient, primitive concept when in reality, it is believed, God and Man are equal. This has been applied to the Church and an erosion of the Church has been the result.

God and Man being equal nullifies the concepts of God judging Man, of sin, and eternal separation. It also nullifies the concept of the God-Man, Jesus Christ being superior to other divinities, such as Muhammed or Buddha. And since Christ is but a god among gods, so the Catholic Church is but a church among churches. Men and Women are but humans among humanity.

(Notice the use of title-case words compared to lower-case words. This is deliberate on my part. We’ve moved from giving titles to superior things to bringing them down into the blandness of common test tube labels.)

Most people I know have no problem with me being a devout Catholic, a Traditionalist resisting the spiritual laziness of modernity through simply taking the faith seriously. However, resisting the modern devotion to equality is tantamount to sin.

Why?

Because, as a Davis Aurini has stated, the moral center has moved from the Church to politics and the defacto moral standard for politics is equality. The noble man is not he who submits to things greater than himself, but rather he who rebels against and tries to pull them down for his own individual benefit.

However, Creator and created are not equal, men and women are not equal (how can they be if men are called to govern his family?), divine revelation and scientific theory are not equal, and Catholic morality and secular politics are definitely not equal.

Yeah, definitely not a popular idea.

Equality As A Poison And Lie

Inequality calls men and women to strive for something greater than themselves, be it a greater morality, a greater devotion, or a greater society. If some things are better than others, than to not strive for what is superior is to accept decline toward the inferior, no matter how far it goes. Equality calls men and women to settle for the lowest common denominator. Alexis de Tocqueville made a couple of astute observations about equality as he toured America in the 19th century:

There are no surer guarantees of equality among men than poverty and misfortune.

And:

Americans are so enamored of equality, they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

What his thinking reveals is that equality does not elevate men. Ultimately, it lowers men, moving everyone to the lowest point. When it comes to kings and peasants, equality does not make everyone royalty. It does, however, make kings into paupers.

Worse is that equality thinking feels like an optimistic utopian dream of the best for everyone, but by necessity calls people into not striving for the best. Doing their best might create inequality over another and so doing as much as the next man is all that is required. It is a competition to get to the bottom instead of the top. Such a mindset makes it quite easy for those who propose equality for the masses to place themselves in positions of elite governance.

And herein lies the madness of the lie. Equality is proposed as a righteous remedy to the evil of medieval inequality while completely ignoring that a newer and more oppressive form of inequality is being established as a handful of elites seek to rule completely over the masses. For the sake of equality, the masses are quite willing to accept a polite and elegant form of slavery.

The Tradition Of Church Supremacy

Restoring the natural and rational idea that not all are equal and that the inequalities of life can actually promote better men is an important aspect of Traditional Catholic thinking. The first place to begin is to adhere to and promote the one, true, holy, apostolic, Catholic Church as superior to all others. The Church of Rome being superior yesterday, today, and tomorrow provides a lasting venue for Christ being superior in the hearts of men. This is something modern churchianity and culture has utterly failed to do.

In my pursuit of Tradition, I have chosen not only to pursuit as deep a devotion as I can, but I am fully convinced that the superiority of the Catholic Church (despite its current weakness) justifies that devotion. Truly, if Christ is superior to me (and I assure you He is) then His Catholic Church is superior to all other claims, regardless of their sincerity.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment