← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Okiereddust
Thread ID: 16275 | Posts: 41 | Started: 2005-01-12
2005-01-12 08:38 | User Profile
Reading Walter defend burning at the stake and Quantrill defend indulgences and feudalism on the [URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9143&page=7&pp=15]This Is Christian Nationalism [/URL] thread brought to mind a section the writings of the famous german nationalist Moeller van den Bruck, on the topic of reactionary vs. conservative. Although he is writing specifically about the German Revolution of 1918 (when the monarchy fell) I think there is obviously a similar application to the reformation era (which) Quantrill and Walter call "revolutionary" as well as many other applicable events in history, (those who would reinstall Hitler's version of the Third Reich, Odinists who reinstitute pre-Christian religion as if nothing has everchanged,dogmatic CI's who wish to restore the ancient Kingdom, all come to mind,) as with history and mankind in general.
[QUOTE]A POLICY MAY BE REVERSED: HISTORY CANNOT
1
The revolutionary concludes over hastily that the world now for all time will be guided by the political principles which governed him in overthrowing it.
The reactionary takes the diametrically opposite line: he seriously considers it possible to delete the Revolution from the page of history as if it had never been.
The revolutionary is soon cured of his errorââ¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦..
The reactionary on the other hand imagines that we need only revert to the old moulds in order to have everything again ââ¬Åas it was beforeââ¬Â He has no inclination to compromise with the new. He believes that if only he had the political power it would be perfectly simple to reorganize the world according to the admirable scheme of older days.
The reactionary recognizes the fact of the revolution but he refuses to recognize the revolution itself. He demands emphatically the restoration of the [I]status quo ante[/I].
The revolution has so obviously been wrong ââ¬â historically wrong: as everyone can see after the event! It seems as if the reactionary might be right.
Let us go slowly - we must distinguish between the reactionary and the conservative.
2
The reactionary, like the revolutionary, sees the Revolution only as a political event.
The conservative on the other hand sees it as a historical process and recognizes behind the revolution a spiritual process in which the revolution has its origin ââ¬â however undesirable the spirit of it may seem to himââ¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦.
The reactionary is a spurious variety of conservative. He is a rationalist. He sticks to facts. He recognizes no consequences save the immediate ones. Thus he clings to the facts of the Revolution and pays no heed to the causes. He ignores the causes, party because he himself is one of the causes ââ¬â not as a person but as a type. Indirectly and unsuspectingly, he has allowed many a mental omission of his, which led to a political omission, to contribute to the outbreak of a revolution he was then powerless to prevent. He has not yet understood the Revolution. The conservative on the other hand understands the problems of the Revolution. He has a view of time and space into which these problems fit.
ââ¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦.
The reactionaryââ¬â¢s reading of history is as superficial as the conservativeââ¬â¢s is profound. The reactionary sees the world as he has known it; the conservative sees it as it has been and always will be. He distinguishes the transitory from the eternal. Exactly what has been, never can be again. But what the world has once brought forth she can bring forth again. The reactionaryââ¬â¢s policy is no policy, the conservativeââ¬â¢s is policy on a grand scale. When policy makes history it is great and enduring.
The reactionary confuses the one with the other and would fain reverse the course of history.
Moeller van den Bruck in [I]Germany's Third Empire[/I] ([I]Das Dritte Reich)[/I]) [/QUOTE]
2005-01-12 09:59 | User Profile
I think the question we all have to ask ourselves is what is our true religion. Let's peel back the labels and look to the substance of the thing.
I see lurking behind all this hand wringing about the few [I]autos da fe [/I] the Inquisition inflicted on conversos and their ilk NOT the virulent (albeit mistaken) Christian zealotry of Luther or Calvin (which as I've shown apparently had no problem with the Inquistion's methods), but rather CAPITULATION to the humanistic religion of the Enlightenment.
Rushdoony really has the number on this one. A change of law of necessity implies a change in religion, for all law - indeed all culture - flows from religion.
Now we all presumably agree that the Wars of the Reformation ended not with a victory for either the Catholic or Protestant sides, and if that's true then it follows that peace must have been based instead upon the wholesale adoption of a new religion by both sides. And indeed that is the case. The Wars of the Reformation ended not with a Christian victory at all (either Protestant or Catholic), but rather with the absolute defeat of both Christian sides through the mass (albeit mostly cryptic) conversion of Europe to the Religion of the Enlightenment. Or at least what would become the Enlightenment. I mean here the teachings of guys like Hobbes and all that followed in England and France.
To put it another way, I'm saying that while both sides were and are loth to admit the fact of their apostasy forthrightly, and even while they continue mouthing their Christian rhetoric even unto this latter day, their Christianity in this basic sense was and remains a lie. Their ultimate loyalty is to something else altogether. The true basis for the Peace of Westphalia wasn't Christian at all. It was APOSTASY by both sides. It was a denial of the supreme authority of the Word of God and its replacement with a man-made, state-sponsored Church of Holy Toleration.
Europe apostasized and adopted a modern form of paganism in stead of the Church. This is the real fruit of the Lutheran and Calvinist attacks on the Church.
Therefore, pace the author of this article, a rejection of the Enlightenment isn't "reactionary" unless one considers a return to Christianity "reactionary" and loyalty to the ersatz religion of the Enlightenment "conservative". Actually, as I write this I think that this is exactly the author's position.
But I reject that. My loyalty is to Christ and His Church, which entails a profound rejection of Enlightenment idolatry and an embrace of the old forms. Which makes me a proud reactionary, I guess.
Walter
PS: this is precisely why Belloc prophesied the rise of Islam later in the 20th century. Outside Turkey and a few other places, Islam didn't apostasize and accept the Religion that Attaturk and now Shrub offer them. Islam is strong because it remains true to itself. We Christians are weak because we actually place the values of the Enlightenment Religion before our own Christian faith. I think we all have this disease of Enlightenment-itis to one degree or another. The first step is always to admit the problem. Let's get clear on this.
2005-01-12 16:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] To put it another way, I'm saying that while both sides were and are loth to admit the fact of their apostasy forthrightly, and even while they continue mouthing their Christian rhetoric even unto this latter day, their Christianity in this basic sense was and remains a lie. Their ultimate loyalty is to something else altogether. The true basis for the Peace of Westphalia wasn't Christian at all. It was APOSTASY by both sides. It was a denial of the supreme authority of the Word of God and its replacement with a man-made, state-sponsored Church of Holy Toleration...
PS: this is precisely why Belloc prophesied the rise of Islam later in the 20th century. Outside Turkey and a few other places, Islam didn't apostasize and accept the Religion that Attaturk and now Shrub offer them. Islam is strong because it remains true to itself. We Christians are weak because we actually place the values of the Enlightenment Religion before our own Christian faith. I think we all have this disease of Enlightenment-itis to one degree or another. The first step is always to admit the problem. Let's get clear on this.[/QUOTE] Very well put, Walter. We are so steeped in our Enlightenment biases -- materialism, rationalism, egalitarianism, secularism, etc. -- that we never stop to examine our underlying assumptions. If Christianity conflicts with the Religion of Equality, for example, then we toss out whatever aspect of Christianity is necessary to accomodate Equality, which is our true faith. We are willing to challenge Christian dogma in the spirit of tolerance and enlightenment, but we are not willing to challenge the dogma of tolerance and enlightenment in the spirit of Christianity. This article seems to paint compromise with and acceptance of manifestly unhealthy changes as a good thing. If there truly is one unchanging truth, as Christians have traditionally believed, then how can it be wrong to want to return to that truth, when it is obvious that you have erred?
2005-01-12 17:32 | User Profile
"Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Cyprian of Carthage, Letters circa 256).
Man is insatiable for power; he is infantile in his desires and, always discontented with what he has, loves only what he has not. People complain of the despotism of princes; they ought to complain of the despotism of man. Joseph de Maistre
"Maistre's primary argument in defence of the Spanish Inquisition is that it 'was, originally, an institution required and established by the kings of Spain in difficult and extraordinary circumstances.' At the time of its establishment, 'the very existence of the Spanish nation,' according to Maistre (citing the 1812 Committee report to the Cortes that abolished the Inquisition), had been threatened by Judaism and Islam; the Jews, especially, were a 'nation enclosed within a nation,' and 'almost the masters of Spain.' [[Sound familiar?]]In support of this political argument, Maistre cites what he calls the 'one of the most incontestable of political axioms,' i.e., 'Never could great political evils, never especially could violent attacks against the body of the state, be prevented or repelled, except by means equally violent.'Maistre also cites the 'Roman formula': Videant consules, ne respublica detrimentum capiat (Let the consuls look to the safety of the state), as justification for the Spanish king's decision to use the Inquisition to ensure national unity. ... "
[url="http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/history/links/maistre/spanishinquisition.html"]http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/history/links/maistre/spanishinquisition.html[/url]
2005-01-12 17:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE]We are willing to challenge Christian dogma in the spirit of tolerance and enlightenment, but we are not willing to challenge the dogma of tolerance and enlightenment in the spirit of Christianity.[/QUOTE]
Bullseye.
2005-01-12 17:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=HrodbertAntoninus]"Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Cyprian of Carthage, Letters circa 256).
Man is insatiable for power; he is infantile in his desires and, always discontented with what he has, loves only what he has not. People complain of the despotism of princes; they ought to complain of the despotism of man. Joseph de Maistre
"Maistre's primary argument in defence of the Spanish Inquisition is that it 'was, originally, an institution required and established by the kings of Spain in difficult and extraordinary circumstances.' At the time of its establishment, 'the very existence of the Spanish nation,' according to Maistre (citing the 1812 Committee report to the Cortes that abolished the Inquisition), had been threatened by Judaism and Islam; the Jews, especially, were a 'nation enclosed within a nation,' and 'almost the masters of Spain.' [[Sound familiar?]]In support of this political argument, Maistre cites what he calls the 'one of the most incontestable of political axioms,' i.e., 'Never could great political evils, never especially could violent attacks against the body of the state, be prevented or repelled, except by means equally violent.'Maistre also cites the 'Roman formula': Videant consules, ne respublica detrimentum capiat (Let the consuls look to the safety of the state), as justification for the Spanish king's decision to use the Inquisition to ensure national unity. ... "
[url="http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/history/links/maistre/spanishinquisition.html"]http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/history/links/maistre/spanishinquisition.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Well quoth, Hrodbert. I'm pleased to have you here.
2005-01-12 18:27 | User Profile
Christendom
Christendom is the part of the world inhabited by Christians, understood as a polity ordered toward Christ though recognition of the authority of the Church. The ordering of course has never been perfect, but Christ was nonetheless once understood as the principle of unity and the highest possible authority. As such, Christendom endured until [url="http://jkalb.org/title/%5Bthe+Enlightenment"][color=#367272][the Enlightenment[/color][/url]]. Even into the Twentieth Century in many parts of Europe peasants habitually referred to themselves as "Christians" rather than by nationality or ethnicity, and into the middle of that century the Christian countries could be referred to in public as Christian countries.
With the decline of Church authority and unity Christendom, or at least Latin Christendom, became first "Europe" and then "The West." Our political world is thus the remains of Latin Christendom, now in disorder because it has lost touch with the central realities that once ordered it.
Religion ââ¬â the accepted understanding of the nature of man and the world ââ¬â is the fundamental principle of every political order. Current liberal understandings seem unable to maintain social order in the long run. The [url="http://jkalb.org/title/restoration+of+Christendom"][color=#367272]restoration of Christendom[/color][/url] is therefore a necessity if our civilization is to continue in anything like its historic form.
[url="http://jkalb.org/title/Christendom"]http://jkalb.org/title/Christendom[/url]
"Europe is the Church, and the Church is Europe." "Europe will return to the Faith, or she will perish. The Faith is Europe. And Europe is the Faith." Hilaire Belloc
2005-01-13 00:53 | User Profile
[I][B][COLOR=Red]"Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Cyprian of Carthage, Letters circa 256)."[/COLOR][/B][/I]
This seems to be a usual a Catholic defense for the historicity of the doctrine of Papal supremacy and infallibility. It is dealt with thoroughly in here:
[SIZE=3][B]"Catholic Legends And How They Get Started: An Example"[/B][/SIZE]
[B]by James White[/B]
...
[B][COLOR=Navy]"We have often seen amateur Catholic apologists confidently asserting that Cyprian believed in the infallibility of the bishop of Rome, or that Augustine took the word of Rome as the final authority. Surely that is Keating’s intention, given the context, in citing both patristic sources. But, as all students of church history know (and as Roman Catholic historians have admitted for a very long time), neither early father would have agreed with the use of their words by Keating. In fact, Keating could never defend the veracity of his research against a meaningful criticism. Let’s look briefly at Cyprian and Augustine and see how this Catholic legend is just that: legendary. "[/COLOR][/B]
...
[url]http://aomin.org/Sermo131.html[/url]
Petr
2005-01-13 01:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]To put it another way, I'm saying that while both sides were and are loth to admit the fact of their apostasy forthrightly, and even while they continue mouthing their Christian rhetoric even unto this latter day, their Christianity in this basic sense was and remains a lie. Their ultimate loyalty is to something else altogether. The true basis for the Peace of Westphalia wasn't Christian at all. It was APOSTASY by both sides. It was a denial of the supreme authority of the Word of God and its replacement with a man-made, state-sponsored Church of Holy Toleration.
Now you [B]know[/B] the Catholic Church never claimed supreme authority for anything but itself, Walter.
Europe apostasized and adopted a modern form of paganism in stead of the Church. This is the real fruit of the Lutheran and Calvinist attacks on the Church. Typical reactionary oversimplification -blaming everything that came after on the defeat of Catholic political dictatorship and religious monopoly.
Therefore, pace the author of this article, a rejection of the Enlightenment isn't "reactionary" unless one considers a return to Christianity "reactionary" and loyalty to the ersatz religion of the Enlightenment "conservative". Actually, as I write this I think that this is exactly the author's position. :lol: You obviously never read Moeller on the Enlightenment.
But I reject that. My loyalty is to Christ and His Church, which entails a profound rejection of Enlightenment idolatry and an embrace of the old forms. Which makes me a proud reactionary, I guess. Is it really? Or is it to the traditions of judaic men, Christ so warned about, and came to do away with?
I say judaic, because really there is a pretty good argument to be made that high church theology imitates OT priest/temple worship, both symbology and ritual, very closely.
I'm somewhat tolerant here, of forms of this actually - CI and Catholicism among them of course. I suppose you would say it is my enlightenment prejudice, and that we should really burn those we consider heretics at the stake.
PS: this is precisely why Belloc prophesied the rise of Islam later in the 20th century. Outside Turkey and a few other places, Islam didn't apostasize and accept the Religion that Attaturk and now Shrub offer them. Islam is strong because it remains true to itself. We Christians are weak because we actually place the values of the Enlightenment Religion before our own Christian faith. I think we all have this disease of Enlightenment-itis to one degree or another. The first step is always to admit the problem. Let's get clear on this.[/QUOTE]So you're returning to your "Christian Talibanism" position Walter?
I think you provide good example of how the reactionary is the perfect allie of the revolutionary. Fortunately I think you always write tongue and cheek to a certain extent. I don't think even you can really take yourself seriously. However not everyone is so generous.
2005-01-13 02:04 | User Profile
Okiereddust,
But what does the "conservative" do when there is nothing left to save? He becomes a reactionary. The "Reactionary" is Forester. Nearly all the trees of the Forest are dead, but he has saved a few seeds. He will grow a new Forest! The Reactionary wants to start planting trees, but first he must clear the weeds from the land! The Reactionary is ready to fight and rebuild Civilization.
:tank: :tank:
2005-01-13 03:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]Okiereddust,
**But what does the "conservative" do when there is nothing left to save? He becomes a reactionary. No, when there is nothing left to conserve, a conservative looks to new values and a new order. I.e. he becomes indistinguishable from a revolutionary.
The "Reactionary" is Forester. Nearly all the trees of the Forest are dead, but he has saved a few seeds. He will grow a new Forest! The Reactionary wants to start planting trees, but first he must clear the weeds from the land! The Reactionary is ready to fight and rebuild Civilization.**
:tank: :tank:[/QUOTE] Seeds certainly count as something to conserve. After all, the new trees grow upon the pattern of the old. He is looking to the inheritance of the pattern of the past to make a new forest.
Indeed sometimes, actually usually, a forester must preen his forest of old and dying trees to replace with young vigourous ones. The young ones have a more perfect patern of the past in them.
This is after all what Luther did. Indeed what Christ did for worshipers of God.
They only became revolutionaries in a sense when reaction left them no choice. One must build upon a living tradition, not a dead one.
2005-01-13 04:35 | User Profile
Okiereddust,
Yes there is always something left to conserve. I thinking more that there is almost nothing left to conserve in the evil soviet state that rules over us.
The seed of our Civilization is still left and must be saved. A tradition cannot be said to be dead so long as someone remembers it. It is the job of the "Remnant" to rebuild Civilization. In some ways I kind of like the idea of a Euro-Talibanism. It's time to start killing and pulling weeds.
2005-01-13 07:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE][QUOTE]Now you [B]know[/B] the Catholic Church never claimed supreme authority for anything but itself, Walter.[/QUOTE]
The Catholic Church always proclaimed the Kingship of Christ. Whatever authority the Papacy claimed was always viewed as wholly derivative from the authority of the Word of God. And there really is no question that the Churches always recognized the primacy of Rome from the very beginning. The exact formulation of that primacy has been a bone of contention between East and West for just the longest time, but the fact of some sort of Papal primacy was never in dispute, at least before the innovations introduced by the Reformation.
[QUOTE]Typical reactionary oversimplification -blaming everything that came after on the defeat of Catholic political dictatorship and religious monopoly. [/QUOTE]
I'm saying that it was a defeat of both Christian positions. I appreciate the Reformation, I just don't agree with it. Certainly the institutional Church was putridly corrupt at the time. It's impossible to defend the Medici Popes from that. The impulse to reform was all to the good, but then the pride of men like Luther and Calvin drove that movement into heresy.
[QUOTE]Is it really? Or is it to the traditions of judaic men, Christ so warned about, and came to do away with? I say judaic, because really there is a pretty good argument to be made that high church theology imitates OT priest/temple worship, both symbology and ritual, very closely.[/QUOTE]
So does the New Testament. Revelation is chocked full of references to the liturgy. The very name Revelation (unvieling) relates to the tearing asunder of the veil of the Holy of Holies in the Temple, meaning that all Christians may worship God in "Spirit and Truth." Perhaps the most destructive aspect of Calvinist heresy was its denigration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Until Vatican II, we Catholics (and Orthodox) worshipped exactly the way the Apostles intended. St. John the Evangelist penned Revelation, after all.
[QUOTE]I'm somewhat tolerant here, of forms of this actually - CI and Catholicism among them of course. I suppose you would say it is my enlightenment prejudice, and that we should really burn those we consider heretics at the stake.[/QUOTE]
Why do you think burning heretics at the stake is wrong?
What is your opinion of Calvin's torching of Servetus?
I really don't understand your objection to this, and I think Q didn't get this point either per above. Please explain.
[QUOTE]So you're returning to your "Christian Talibanism" position Walter?[/QUOTE]
I never left it. Perhaps the Taliban reference was inappropriate from a rhetorical perspective (although the fact that it is remembered indicates a certain marketing cache), but anyway the fundamental point remains. We need a religious movement that places Christ first and without apology. We need a thorougly intolerant movement that subjects all who fail to accept it to dhimmitude. That's what I meant by Christian Talibanism, and that's what I continue to hope for.
[QUOTE]I think you provide good example of how the reactionary is the perfect allie of the revolutionary. [/QUOTE]
I consider myself a revolutionary. I hope and pray for a collapse of the current system, in the hope that a profoundly Christian and reactionary movement will come to power. I read Lenin and admire his tactics, even as I remain an ideological enemy. I think that Lenin was really just a Jesuit in his tactics, so nothing a good Catholic can't get behind there anyway. I believe Franco was a great Catholic man, although flawed like the rest of us.
Christ brought not peace, but the sword.
[QUOTE]Fortunately I think you always write tongue and cheek to a certain extent. I don't think even you can really take yourself seriously. However not everyone is so generous.[/QUOTE]
I guess all I can do is reassure you that I'm completely serious about this. Like I said I'm not above a bit of rhetorical flourish, but in terms of the basic idea of instituting a profoundly Christian society I'm dead serious.
2005-01-13 07:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Why do you think burning heretics at the stake is wrong?
What is your opinion of Calvin's torching of Servetus?
I really don't understand your objection to this, and I think Q didn't get this point either per above. Please explain. [/QUOTE]See [URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=97227&postcount=120]my answer to Quantrill.[/URL]Most people would say your position is that of a lunatic, frankly.
2005-01-13 08:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]See [URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=97227&postcount=120]my answer to Quantrill.[/URL]Most people would say your position is that of a lunatic, frankly.[/QUOTE]
I checked your answer to Q, and note that you didn't address the questions I posed there. Please address them here directly.
[QUOTE]1. Why do you think burning heretics at the stake is wrong?
As to the alleged lunacy of my position in the eyes of "most people," I always consider the source. Frankly, I don't have a terribly high opinion of "most people." As only one example, recall that most Americans have no strong objections to child murder. Would you not describe that as "lunacy?" I think you would, yet you would impugn my ideas before the Court of the Common Man. Vox populi vox Dei? None of that particular brand of idolatry for me, thanks.
I don't believe in democracy for the simple reason that I don't want the morally vacuous majority to weild any power over me, by the ballot box or otherwise.
To the contrary, Okie, respecting the opinions of "most people" on such issues is the truly lunatic position.
Walter
2005-01-13 16:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Is it really? Or is it to the traditions of judaic men, Christ so warned about, and came to do away with?
I say judaic, because really there is a pretty good argument to be made that high church theology imitates OT priest/temple worship, both symbology and ritual, very closely.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.mbrem.com/bible/sufficn.htm]The Sufficiency of the Written Word[/url] by Dr. John F. MacArthur, Jr.
The tendency to venerate tradition is very strong in religion. The world is filled with religions that have been following set traditions for hundreds -- even thousands -- of years. Cultures come and go, but religious tradition shows an amazing continuity.
In fact, many ancient religions -- including Druidism, Native American religions, and several of the oriental cults -- eschewed written records of their faith, preferring to pass down their legends and rituals and dogmas via word of mouth. Such religions usually treat their body of traditions as a de facto authority equal to other religions' sacred writings.
Even among the world's religions that revere sacred writings, however, tradition and Scripture are often blended. This is true in Hinduism, for example, where the ancient Vedas are the Scriptures, and traditions handed down by gurus round out the faith of most followers.
Tradition in effect becomes a lens through which the written word is interpreted. Tradition therefore stands as the highest of all authorities, because it renders the only authoritative interpretation of the sacred writings.
This tendency to view tradition as supreme authority is not unique to pagan religions. Traditional Judaism, for example, follows the Scripture-plus-tradition paradigm. The familiar books of the Old Testament alone are viewed as Scripture, but true orthodoxy is actually defined by a collection of ancient rabbinical traditions known as the Talmud. In effect, the traditions of the Talmud carry an authority equal to or greater than that of the inspired Scriptures.
....
This is no recent development within Judaism. The Jews of Jesus' day also placed tradition on an equal footing with Scripture. Rather, in effect, they made tradition superior to Scripture, because Scripture was interpreted by tradition and therefore made subject to it.
Whenever tradition is elevated to such a high level of authority, it inevitably becomes detrimental to the authority of Scripture. Jesus made this very point when he confronted the Jewish leaders. He showed that in many cases their traditions actually nullified Scripture. He therefore rebuked them in the harshest terms:
"Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men."
"Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." He was also saying to them, "You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death'; but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, anything of mine you might have been helped by is Corban (that is to say, given to God),' you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother, thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that (Mark 7:6 -- 13).
It was inexcusable that tradition would be elevated to the level of Scripture in Judaism, because when God gave the law to Moses, it was in written form for a reason: to make it permanent and inviolable. The Lord made very plain that the truth He was revealing was not to be tampered with, augmented, or diminished in any way. His Word was the final authority in all matters: "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you" (Deuteronomy 4:2). They were to observe His commandments assiduously, and neither supplement nor abrogate them by any other kind of "authority": "Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it" (Deuteronomy 12:32).
So the revealed Word of God, and nothing else, was the supreme and sole authority in Judaism. This alone was the standard of truth delivered to them by God Himself. Moses was instructed to write down the very words God gave him (Exodus 34:27), and that written record of God's Word became the basis for God's covenant with the nation (Exodus 24:4, 7). The written Word was placed in the Ark of the Covenant (Deuteronomy 31:9), symbolizing its supreme authority in the lives and the worship of the Jews forever. God even told Moses' successor, Joshua: "Be strong and very courageous; be careful to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, so that you may have success wherever you go. This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night., so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it" Joshua 1:7 -- 8).
Of course, other books of inspired Scripture beside those written by Moses were later added to the Jewish canon -- but this was a prerogative reserved by God alone. Sola Scriptura was therefore established in principle with the giving of the law. No tradition passed down by word of mouth, no rabbinical opinion, and no priestly innovation was to be accorded authority equal to the revealed Word of God as recorded in Scripture.
Agur understood this principle: "Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar" (Proverbs 30:5 -- 6).
The Scriptures therefore were to be the one standard by which everyone who claimed to speak for God was tested: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isaiah 8:20, KJV).
In short, tradition had no legitimate place of authority in the worship of Jehovah. Everything was to be tested by the Word of God as recorded in the Scriptures. That's why Jesus' rebuke to the scribes and Pharisees was so harsh. Their very faith in Rabbinical tradition was in and of itself a serious transgression of the covenant and commandments of God (cf. Matthew 15:3). The Rise and Ruin of Catholic Tradition
Unfortunately, Christianity has often followed the same tragic road as paganism and Judaism in its tendency to elevate tradition to a position of authority equal to or greater than Scripture. **The Catholic Church in particular has its own body of tradition that functions exactly like the Jewish Talmud: it is the standard by which Scripture is to be interpreted. In effect, tradition supplants the voice of Scripture itself. **
Roman Catholic doctrine is shot through with legends and dogmas and superstitions that have no biblical basis whatsoever. The stations of the cross, the veneration of saints and angels, the Marian doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and the notion that Mary is co-mediatrix with Christ -- none of those doctrines can be substantiated by Scripture. They are the product of Roman Catholic tradition....
2005-01-13 17:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]> 1. Why do you think burning heretics at the stake is wrong?
What is your opinion of Calvin's torching of Servetus? I checked your answer to Q, and note that you didn't address the questions I posed there. Please address them here directly.
Because I am a Christian.
What any Christian's opinion should be. If that is unclear to you, you need to go throw aside everything you've ever learned about religion and start from square 1.
Festus's question of Paul (Acts 26) applies to you, and you cannot give truthfully reply with Paul's answer.
As to the alleged lunacy of my position in the eyes of "most people," I always consider the source. Frankly, I don't have a terribly high opinion of "most people." As only one example, recall that most Americans have no strong objections to child murder. Would you not describe that as "lunacy?" Not from the viewpoint of someone unclear implicitely or not so implictely advocating mureder on an equal scale of adults. > I think you would, yet you would impugn my ideas before the Court of the Common Man. Vox populi vox Dei? None of that particular brand of idolatry for me, thanks. You mean you prefer your own brand? :lol:
2005-01-14 01:43 | User Profile
Okiereddust,
Hey, Sometimes you just need to impale, burn, and kill Liberals and Aliens! Vlad Tepes knew what had to be done to save our Civilization. It long past we went back to the old ways! The seed of our Civilization is still left and must be saved. A tradition cannot be said to be dead so long as someone remembers it. It is the job of the "Remnant" to rebuild Civilization. In some ways I kind of like the idea of a Euro-Talibanism. It's time to start killing and pulling weeds.
Let us all get to work! :cheers:
:tank: :gunsmilie :tank:
2005-01-14 02:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]Okiereddust,
Hey, Sometimes you just need to impale, burn, and kill Liberals and Aliens! Vlad Tepes knew what had to be done to save our Civilization. It long past we went back to the old ways! The seed of our Civilization is still left and must be saved. A tradition cannot be said to be dead so long as someone remembers it. It is the job of the "Remnant" to rebuild Civilization. In some ways I kind of like the idea of a Euro-Talibanism. It's time to start killing and pulling weeds.
Let us all get to work! :cheers:
:tank: :gunsmilie :tank:[/QUOTE]Didn't you just post this? Whatever. Being a reactionary sounds tough. Its so simple.
The reactionary on the other hand imagines that we need only revert to the old moulds in order to have everything again ââ¬Åas it was beforeââ¬Â He has no inclination to compromise with the new. He believes that if only he had the political power it would be perfectly simple to reorganize the world according to the admirable scheme of older days.
Only problem is he doesn't how his original his original mistakes helped create the original problem.
Thus he clings to the facts of the Revolution and pays no heed to the causes. He ignores the causes, party because he himself is one of the causes ââ¬â not as a person but as a type. Indirectly and unsuspectingly, he has allowed many a mental omission of his, which led to a political omission, to contribute to the outbreak of a revolution he was then powerless to prevent. He's ready to fight, but since he's never learned from his previous mistakes. He'll just lose again. Right now, if anyone get's impaled it will be us.
2005-01-14 12:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] Only problem is he doesn't how his original his original mistakes helped create the original problem.
He's ready to fight, but since hes never learned from his previous mistakes. He'll just lose again. Right now, if anyone get's impaled it will be us.[/QUOTE] What if his original mistake was not fighting vigorously enough to protect his civilization? If that is the case, then simply being ready to fight IS learning from his previous mistakes.
2005-01-14 13:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE][Okiereddust]
[QUOTE]2. What any Christian's opinion should be. If that is unclear to you, you need to go throw aside everything you've ever learned about religion and start from square 1. [/QUOTE] It's unclear to me, and was also apparently unclear to both Calvin and Luther, which places me in pretty good company, at least by Protestant lights. So please humor me and tell me exactly why Calvin was wrong - why he was un-Christian - to burn the Spaniard alive in Geneva.
[QUOTE]Festus's question of Paul (Acts 26) applies to you, and you cannot give truthfully reply with Paul's answer. [/QUOTE] You lost me on this one.
[QUOTE]Acts 26:24And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.
25But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.
26For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.[/QUOTE]
This makes no sense to me. Please explain.
[QUOTE]Not from the viewpoint of someone unclear implicitely or not so implictely advocating mureder on an equal scale of adults. You mean you prefer your own brand? :lol:[/QUOTE]
Did Calvin commit murder when he burned Servetus? You're throwing around terms like that rather carelessly.
The taking of human life is a very grave matter, but it is justified - even morally imperative - under the right circumstances. From St. Augustine (Luther was a big fan) through the ages all the way down to the Reformation and beyond, Christians had little problem with violence when necessary to protect the Church from enemies both foreign and domestic.
Your unquestioned objection to the same is outside the great weight of the Christian tradition and is almost purely innovative. Since your unexplained revulsion of all religious violence breaks firmly with Christian tradition (including the Reformation tradition), it of necessity derives from some other religious source, for such unquestioned obedience to unprovable values can only flow from religion.
As I tried to explain above, your rejection of the traditional Christian understanding of error having no rights and the need for the Christian state to protect the Church from heretics indicates your loyalty to a non-Christian religion:the Religion of the Enlightenment.
J'accuse, Okie. You're clearly placing your Enlightenment religious beliefs that you (and the rest of us) imbibed from the surrounding pagan culture before your professed Christianity here. Your refusal to address this question directly tends strongly to prove that point.
2005-01-14 15:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]What if his original mistake was not fighting vigorously enough to protect his civilization? If that is the case, then [B]simply being ready to fight[/B] IS learning from his previous mistakes.[/QUOTE]"Being ready to fight" :lol: Translation - ocasionally doing a little brave talk on the internet, like all the keyboard warriers.
2005-01-14 15:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]"Being ready to fight" :lol: Translation - ocasionally doing a little brave talk on the internet, like all the keyboard warriers.[/QUOTE] A group from which you are exempted, somehow? At least I have accepted that struggle may sometimes be necessary, whereas you are living in a fantasy world of unexamined liberal assumptions.
One last thing -- what is your record for most consecutive posts without a smiley? Two, maybe?
2005-01-14 15:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]But the question is precisely why a Christian should believe burning heretics at the stake is wrong. You avoid answering that question forthrightly and resort to mere flippancy. I ask you yet again to address it directly.
It's unclear to me, and was also apparently unclear to both Calvin and Luther, which places me in pretty good company, at least by Protestant lights. So please humor me and tell me exactly why Calvin was wrong - why he was un-Christian - to burn the Spaniard alive in Geneva.
You lost me on this one.
This makes no sense to me. Please explain.
Well I composed a long answer and my computer crashed. Anyway I don't need to explain this any further than I have anyway - its becoming pointless. I'm not your theology teacher, and the one you had obviously wasn't very good. But it doesn't matter anyway. As one who claims to be a Catholic but ignores his very own Church's position on the death penalty you're really being duplitious here anyway.
The taking of human life is a very grave matter, but it is justified - even morally imperative - under the right circumstances. From St. Augustine (Luther was a big fan) through the ages all the way down to the Reformation and beyond, Christians had little problem with violence when necessary to protect the Church from enemies both foreign and domestic. Protestant Christians, by the standards of today's Church. Which you are yourself Walter.
As I tried to explain above, your rejection of the traditional Christian understanding of error having no rights and the need for the Christian state to protect the Church from heretics indicates your loyalty to a non-Christian religion:the Religion of the Enlightenment.
J'accuse, Okie. You're clearly placing your Enlightenment religious beliefs that you (and the rest of us) imbibed from the surrounding pagan culture before your professed Christianity here. Your refusal to address this question directly tends strongly to prove that point.[/QUOTE]People that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
2005-01-14 16:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] Protestant Christians, by the standards of today's Church[/QUOTE] Isn't this the problem?
2005-01-14 16:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Isn't this the problem?[/QUOTE]You mean, the standards of today's Church?
Not for a good Catholic, especially one who insists that those who question the standards and authority of present day Church leaders like Luther did should have been burned at stake for heresy.
2005-01-14 16:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]You mean, the standards of today's Church?
Not for a good Catholic, especially one who insists that those who question the standards and authority of present day Church leaders like Luther did should have been burned at stake for heresy.[/QUOTE] You specifically said 'Protestant Christians buy the standards of today's Church.' My point was that the standards of today's churches are part of the problem.
2005-01-14 17:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]You specifically said 'Protestant Christians by the standards of today's Church.' My point was that the standards of today's churches are part of the problem.[/QUOTE]And my point was in making these kinds of statements about your own Church you are as much a Protestant as Luther.
I only want to hear one more thing from you. "I recant". :osama:
2005-01-14 17:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]And my point was in making these kinds of statements about your own Church you are as much a Protestant as Luther.
I only want to hear one more thing from you. "I recant". :osama:[/QUOTE] Okie -- Firstly, criticism of neither the Catholic Church, nor of individual priests, nor of the Pope himself is prohibited for Catholics. Ask Walter, or Vytis, or Tom Fleming for that matter, what they think about the current state of affairs in the Church. Luther, on the other hand, challenged the fundamental basis of Christianity as it existed up until that time. You may very well agree with Luther, but to pretend that all he wanted was a little more emphasis on the Bible, or an end to the selling of indulgences is dishonest. Secondly, you mentioned Protestants specifically, but then you claim to be talking about Catholics. Which is it? Finally, it is not my 'own Church,' as I am not Catholic. I am merely sympathetic to Catholicism, as I think it is more tightly bound up with Western Civilization than most people appreciate.
2005-01-14 18:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]..... Luther, on the other hand, challenged the fundamental basis of Christianity as it existed up until that time. You may very well agree with Luther, but to pretend that all he wanted was a little more emphasis on the Bible, or an end to the selling of indulgences is dishonest.
Secondly, you mentioned Protestants specifically, but then you claim to be talking about Catholics. Which is it? [B]Finally, it is not my 'own Church,' as I am not Catholic. I am merely sympathetic to Catholicism, as I think it is more tightly bound up with Western Civilization than most people appreciate[/B].[/QUOTE]You certainly sounded Catholic, i.e.
[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?p=97266#post97266[/url]
[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=97059&postcount=89[/url]
[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=97041&postcount=84[/url]
This discussion is silly. I feel like I'm arguing with Fade the Butcher, trying to figure out which incarnation he is today.
People who make arguments for things they don't personally believe in are wasting all our time.
2005-01-14 18:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] This discussion is silly. I feel like I'm arguing with Fade the Butcher, trying to figure out which incarnation he is today.
People who make arguments for things they don't personally believe in are wasting all our time.[/QUOTE] Cute, Okie, but disingenuous. I haven't made any arguments for things I don't believe. I am not a Catholic, and I have never claimed to be. I attend an Orthodox Church, and will likely convert in the near future. The Great Schism was a tragedy, but the Catholic Church (warts and all) remained the absolute bedrock foundation of Western Civilization and Christendom. The Reformation was another huge tragedy, and, probably without realizing what they were doing, the Reformers were attacking the institution upon which their civilization was based. I have not had multiple 'incarnations' as you put it, and implying so is simply ad hominem. I can think the Catholic Church was in the right, both politically and theologically, at certain historical junctures without being a Catholic myself, especially since the Orthodox and Catholics hold a great deal of dogma in common. You are right about one thing, though -- this discussion is increasingly silly.
2005-01-14 18:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Firstly, criticism of neither the Catholic Church, nor of individual priests, nor of the Pope himself is prohibited for Catholics.
I believe Okie's point is that it would be under your and Walter's Papist Taliban.
Luther, on the other hand, challenged the fundamental basis of Christianity as it existed up until that time.
That's just not true. He was an Augustinian monk for goodness sakes. If anything, he was just reasserting Augustinian/early church doctrine i.e. justification by faith alone. It only escalated after that entirely because of Rome's stiff-necked refusal to even discuss the issues raised by Luther's 95 theses. Hence Okie's "do you recant?" question above was pretty good.
If the papacy today asked that same question of you, walter or Tom Fleming over a matter y'all disagreed with them on, allowing no other choice to be considered and under penalty of death, I wonder if you would do the same as Martin Luther did. "Here I stand, I can do no other."
2005-01-14 18:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Cute, Okie, but disingenuous. I haven't made any arguments for things I don't believe. I am not a Catholic, and I have never claimed to be. I attend an Orthodox Church, and will likely convert in the near future......
I can think the Catholic Church was in the right, both politically and theologically, at certain historical junctures without being a Catholic myself, especially since the Orthodox and Catholics hold a great deal of dogma in common.
You are right about one thing, though -- this discussion is increasingly silly.[/QUOTE]Well the way you explain it that way at least makes sense. Orthodox like you say is quite close to Catholic. Now in a sense being Orthodox like you describe sounds a bit like trying to have your cake and eat it too - you can support all the Catholic positions you want and like, without being actually subject to ecclesiastical authority and the positions you don't like.
Martin Luther unfortunately had no such choice. That was the original problem. But at least I see you were arguing in good faith.
2005-01-14 19:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I believe Okie's point is that it would be under your and Walter's Papist Taliban. I, for one, don't want a Papist Taliban. As I mentioned in a post in the Christian Nationalism thread -- 'I am defending the underlying principle that the Church has to the duty to protect Christian civilization, and that this entails some limitations on speech and actions. Furthermore, in extreme cases, this duty must be backed up by the use of force.'
From this, you and Okie have imagined me at the head of a Papist Gestapo straight out of a Chick Ministries tract, slaughtering infants and drinking the blood of anyone who can't recite the Nicene Creed backwards in Greek. Okie never did come up with a cogent response to my statement above, preferring to rail on and on about the Inquisition, burning at the stake, etc.
2005-01-14 19:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Well the way you explain it that way at least makes sense. Orthodox like you say is quite close to Catholic. Now in a sense being Orthodox like you describe sounds a bit like trying to have your cake and eat it too - you can support all the Catholic positions you want and like, without being actually subject to ecclesiastical authority and the positions you don't like.[/QUOTE] As an Orthodox, I am subject to ecclesiastical authority. Just not to the authority of the Bishop of Rome.
2005-01-14 20:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]As an Orthodox, I am subject to ecclesiastical authority. Just not to the authority of the Bishop of Rome.[/QUOTE]An authority eccesiastical authority certainly not recognized by the authorities of Luther's day, aka no authority in their eyes, eyes who you assert to revere.
The fact that you can worship in an Orthodox Church without being burned at the stake is a product of Luther's principled and couragous stance.
As well as to advocate Orthodoxy on the internet.
2005-01-14 20:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]An authority eccesiastical authority certainly not recognized by the authorities of Luther's day, aka no authority in their eyes, eyes who you assert to revere.
The fact that you can worship in an Orthodox Church without being burned at the stake is a product of Luther's principled and couragous stance.
As well as to advocate Orthodoxy on the internet.[/QUOTE] Actually, no, Okie, the Orthodox are considered schismatics by the Catholics, not heretics. And still, you miss the underlying point, which I have already stated directly at least twice. This is not about whose 'eyes [I] assert to revere.' It is not about Luther's sincerity or bravery. It is not about Internet forums. One. last. time. slowly -- 'I am defending the underlying principle that the Church has to the duty to protect Christian civilization, and that this entails some limitations on speech and actions. Furthermore, in extreme cases, this duty must be backed up by the use of force.' If you wish to address this issue, by all means please respond. If you are still merely looking for opportunities to use the phrase 'burned at that stake' in a sentence, then please don't bother.
2005-01-14 21:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Actually, no, Okie, the Orthodox are considered schismatics by the Catholics, not heretics. And still, you miss the underlying point, which I have already stated directly at least twice. This is not about whose 'eyes [I] assert to revere.' It is not about Luther's sincerity or bravery. It is not about Internet forums. One. last. time. slowly -- 'I am defending the underlying principle that the Church has to the duty to protect Christian civilization, and that this entails some limitations on speech and actions. Furthermore, in extreme cases, this duty must be backed up by the use of force.' [/QUOTE]Yes, and the principle that only the Church has a right to determine whether its definition of "extreme" or not (if your words are even theirs) is valid.
Like the most hidebound reactionary, all you can do when questioned as to the exercise of power is to pull rank, sit on your throne and say all patriotic subjects have the duty to serve their monarch without question. You would implicitly have us return to "the divine right of Kings", who say "I Am the State" etc., and bring black Bloody Mary's heirs as the only legitimate gov't of America.
Types like you are what made the Reformation and Revolution inevitable or even necessary in the first place, as Moeller points out. And why the Conservative Revolution Moeller advocated had to, to be legitimate, include some reforms reactionaries like yourself of course still oppose.
But you don't have to answer. You can just keep repeating "the fuhrer" (oops the Pope) is always right ad infinitum [/I].
2005-01-15 04:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I believe Okie's point is that it would be under your and Walter's Papist Taliban. [/QUOTE]
Not so. Good heavens, I've said some pretty awful things about our own lavender clergy here.
2005-01-15 22:49 | User Profile
Quantrill,
Yes! I agree! [QUOTE]What if his original mistake was not fighting vigorously enough to protect his civilization? If that is the case, then simply being ready to fight IS learning from his previous mistakes.[/QUOTE]
2005-01-15 23:32 | User Profile
[quote=Quantrill]What if his original mistake was not fighting vigorously enough to protect his civilization? If that is the case, then simply being ready to fight IS learning from his previous mistakes.[QUOTE=Faust]Quantrill,
Yes! I agree![/QUOTE] I don't see that he's necessarily learned anything. He could have been ready to fight last time too, just not done so. In fact, last time he did fight, albeit, not vigorously enough. This time he's just "preparing" to fight, whatever that means.
Not to demean demain message boards, but as Heubeck noted, paleo's have a penchent for incessant talking. To be a warrior its not enough to just talk the talk, you've got to walk the walk.