the Church is waiting on you
For a long time, I have said that a Reactionary power play would need the backing of the religious authority. This is part of the problem that exists for Christianity, particularly Roman Catholicism. There is a fear that transition to sound governance will be opposed by the Church, and thus one comes to an impasse. They fight for an institution that opposes them. The same problem exists for Eastern Orthodoxy, but less so because regimes like those currently in Russia have not allowed the Church to be infiltrated by Liberal elements (mainly due to the security risk they represent). Yes, the Church has many bad people in its hierarchy, but few Liberals, at least in the east.
When I wrote my Open Letter to Pope Francis, the issue of the true nature of the Roman Catholic Church was raised when I said that in theory it transcended a single Pope and even a single group of cardinals. It was an institution with a metaphysical character which could not be confined to the will of priests. I didn’t realize the significance of this until James of Casual Histrionics made the following point in response to my call for a more masculine religion:
“Therefore, while your polemics make good points, they should be aimed not at the woman who is being constantly pulled here and there by the ideologies of the world, but the impotence of the so called “traditional” men who have yet to resurrect the Empire who adored the Church like a man loves his wife. Real men do not let their wives and mothers fight their battles for them! Real men do not complain when their wives and mothers are not “muscular” enough to fight foreign invaders. If you consider yourself to be a man, then protect the Church rather than complain about her.”
I had a long time to think about this, considering as well my own understanding of esotericism. I think I was misled in my previous approach, and must reconsider it. I still do believe the Church should forcefully resist Modernity, not kowtow to it, but James’ point goes beyond that. I think he too would like the Pope to stop mincing words on moral issues, playing to Liberal clergy and laity. But many look to the Church (whatever that may be) as this vestigial institution of Tradition, weakened as it is, and rally to it with banner and passion. They might be making a mistake. This isn’t to say we should not be faithful Christians, involved with the Church, and certainly is not to dissuade anyone from entering the Church hierarchy themselves: we need more of that. What I am saying is that we may have been putting the cart before the horse here when discussing political power.
In the past, there have been glorious warriors of the Church, and I talked about some of them in this article, but they are a rare breed who are born from times of struggle and greatness. Typically, the Church outsources its defense. The sovereign is the hand that holds the sword, he is the wing of protection folded over the sacred engineering. When the enemies of true religion struck with their revolutions, who were their primary targets? The Bolsheviks executed the tsar and his family, not Saint Tikhon, the Patriarch. Why? They despised both, but the tsar held the force. Removing him, the country was put at the mercy of the revolutionaries. Churches were demolished, aristocrats were robbed, dissenting civilians were driven out as the reds mopped up the military insurgency against them, the last hurrah of the old guard. Similar narratives can be found in the French Revolution.
the monarchy is the male guardian of the Church
her rape begins when his reign ends
We really must disabuse ourself of the notion that the Church is immune to the destructive whims of bad men. When the Lord tells us that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church, we must understand ‘prevail’ to mean a final victory. Temporary victories can easily be won against the Church, we see them throughout history. Is an internal coup some special form of defeat that the Church is immune to? Not in the slightest. As I said, the Church transcends its priesthood and bestows favor upon those who follow it in righteousness. We are believers in the degeneration of society, and for many of us, this has a metaphysical quality, a corrosion of a deeper plane of existence, inevitable in history and limited in duration. Just as laborers and merchants and even ‘monarchs’ are subject to this corrosion, so is the priesthood.
“the so-called priests and intellectuals will be devotees of their bellies and genitals”
No priest could have a legitimate reason for opposing Reaction. That is a natural outworking of our core principles. If a priest be opposed to Reaction, he serves another God, and is false, just as if a monarch opposes Reaction, he is most certainly not a true monarch, but a puppet figurehead, a bauble. We know that priests have been shut out of the Church for all sorts of horrible moral crimes: sodomy, misappropriation, doctrinal heresy, and so forth. These are absolute betrayals of the priestly function, just as any hint of Liberalism is. Thus, we consider any priestly opposition to our agenda to be illegitimate.
So we now face a conflict wherein illegitimate priests still sanctioned by the Church body itself condemn us, for one reason or another. We can see the potential for this, even if we do not know exactly how it plays out. Are we crestfallen? Yes. When Miron Cristea, the patriarch made prime minister in Romania, heaped scorn upon the imprisoned Corneliu Codreanu, the captain wrote:
“The Orthodox Church has taken an attitude openly hostile to Romania’s youth. It is painful, very painful… The Church of our fathers, the Church of our ancestors strikes us down. The Patriarch is also Prime Minister and everything that causes us so much pain is done in his name. God! Oh, God! What a tragedy! How tortured are our souls!”
the king and the patriarch
This was of course, a dramatic exaggeration. The Legion of the Archangel Michael had either tacit or active support from most of the Orthodox clergy. Cristea was a puppet put in place by the usurper king Carol II, who feared for his own power in light of the Legion’s popularity. The message rings clear however, the despair we might feel when those who ought to know better, these self-described Brahmins, aid our enemies. But this is not entirely rational. Where is our outrage at the merchants who lobby for open borders, and thus our destruction? (No, not (((merchants))), I mean businesspeople of our kin). We do not agonize nearly as much over this treachery. It is because the Church is a holy institution for its followers, and we have for the longest time conflated it with this priest or that priest, so their own bad conduct weighs heavy on our hearts. Such is natural for us. Men are flesh and blood, we can speak to them, and they can hear us. The ‘Church’ itself is more abstract, but it is precisely this abstraction which we serve, for it is the true representative of God on earth, the house upon the rock.
I have made my disdain for the wretched monarchies of the West very clear. ‘Kings’ and ‘queens’ who have long since whored their power to a satanic political class of previously untouchables, in exchange for the peaceful and quiet life of ceremony, media adoration, and taxpayer funded luxury; these are not monarchs. Whatever legitimacy they once had, they sacrificed it. That doesn’t mean monarchy is bad, it means that these people are not representative of its greatness. The same applies to the priesthood. A monarch has no authority to halt a restoration of the monarchical institution itself. Similarly, a pope/patriarch/cleric has no authority to halt a restoration of the Church to its proper station. Opposing these things is like opposing gravity, more severe in fact because it is in opposition to the will of God made clear through organic Tradition, rather than just an elemental force.
My consternation is not absorbed by the Orthodox clergy. I don’t think, given the trajectory that Russia is on, they will oppose the Reactionary agenda. But, Roman Catholic Traditionalists should not feel such consternation about their own clergy, as dire a state as much of it is in. God knows His own. A priest is only worth as much as he commits to sacred truth. His power ebbs away into nothing when he violates this, and his role is reduced to kabuki theater, the same as a monarch.
Do not expect the Church body to risk itself when she has no protection. They should, ideally, but men are weak and fearful. If the eagle holds no sword in its right claw, then the Church will sit in memory of its brutalization at the hands of its enemies, and rightly ask you, “where is your sword, oh, defender of Christendom?” Don’t count on the Church to fix the state. You need to fix the state. How laughable to want the clergy to ascend the steps of the Progressive throne room, put a knife to the throat of our enemies, and demand abdication. That is the job of a legion, not a sacramental institution.
If any ‘priest’ of any station condemn what we do in the coming decades which promise ever greater ambiguity, uncertainty, and unexpected games of power, then pray God that He forgives them for that is all you can do. There is no analogy to Protestant defiance here. We fumigate a once great house of roaches and termites, not lay C4 to demolish it in our zeal to see God more clearly (or so we think) on the other side of the rubble. If the priesthood of ages past could speak to us now from their graves across the Occident, the voice of the Church as a transhistorical institution rather than a contemporary curiosity, and they were to advise us on what we could do to serve God, they would have only one command:
Put a sword back in the right claw of the eagle, stained with the blood of traitors.
(This article got some great responses, from Jim, Aurelius Moner, and Bonald. Check these out for some extra thoughts. And yet more responses from Testis Gratis, James, and Reactionary Future. I’m glad this caused a ‘scuffle’ because dialogue on this issue is very enlightening and necessary. I will address some of the responses hopefully soon)