In a reply to a Catholic nun’s letter, CS Lewis pointed out that he was Anglican and not Catholic because the Catholic Church had divorced itself from the true Medieval Church. The fact that he never explained that statement has driven a couple of generations of his biographers nuts.
One of Lewis’ “Four Loves,” his intellectual and Christian soul mates, was J.R.R. Tolkien. After helping bring Lewis into the Christian fold, Tolkien was very upset that Lewis did not join Tolkien’s Catholic Church.
Lewis never really explained this. In fact, in his Mere Christianity, Lewis stated that one should pick a denomination, but he had very little interest in what that denomination was. In “Screwtape Proposes a Toast,” he ended by Screwtape’s pointing out that the most delicious souls in hell were those of those who hated other even in Hell because one group was entirely Puritan and one group all pilgrimages and ceremony.
So how DID Lewis define HIS denomination? If he had elaborated in that one letter, a lot of his fans and biographers would have been spared the funny farm.
Those souls were in Hell because they had a religious obsession. They were there because they held their religious obsession AGAINST EACH OTHER. The wine Screwtape was delighting in was made up of the pure hatred of one type of Christian for another., not of the doctrines themselves.
Neither Puritan nor Papist was in Hell because they were Puritan or Papist. In fact Lewis makes it very clear that he expected to see the Papist Tolkien and many of the people he had heard described as “Puritan” up there with him.
This, I think, is the boat a theologian will miss. It is easy to lose truth in a stack of books.
A stack of books produces a Truth, something supposedly provable and therefore enforceable.
The Truth is unchangeable, but the truth changes all the time.
You cannot serve two masters. Either you follow truth wherever it leads you to or you adopt a Truth which depends on the facts you have remaining immutable
And if there is one thing we know, it is that this world is not immutable.
That is why theologians have such a hard time with the different denominations, and Lewis had little or none.
No one knows whether the early martyrs of the Church were heretics or not. We don’t know the position of many of the saints on theological points that were later declared essential to salvation.
All we know is that they did what they thought was right and depended on Christ.
If that’s enough for sainthood, it is more than enough for me.
#1 by shari on 06/24/2011 - 9:30 am
The thing is,that now, there isn’t a whole lot of stern Puritans or Catholics condemning each other. It’s more of a wide politically correct goo. There is not much real love in that either.
#2 by Simmons on 06/24/2011 - 10:18 am
Threadjack time. In the Swarm a passive-aggressive showed up and turned a thread into a massive tail chase, perhaps Bob could give us some pointers in dealing with that particular type.
Stay safe in Columbia Bob the feral Africans are in action I hear.
#3 by dungeoneer on 06/24/2011 - 5:38 pm
“a passive-aggressive showed up and turned a thread into a massive tail chase, ”
I thought we bagged him and tagged him after he decided to go out in “a blaze of glory” LOL
#4 by Dave on 06/24/2011 - 10:41 am
I am a little unusual because at an early age I was exposed to old time Calvinism, which in this day and age hardly anybody knows about. Old time Calvinism is intolerable to today’s people. It is a brutal way of thinking they cannot process. You really have to go well back into a mentality that was going away in the 19th century to get a flavor of it.
But because of that, I well understand how short of step it is to go from Calvinism into Communism, or into Nazism, or into Columbian right wing (or left wing) death squads for that matter. It is also easy to get there to militant Jihadist Islamic Fundamentalism.
My personal background makes me understand this stuff better than most people.
In America, Pentecostalism and also Evangelicalism were very successful in the 20th Century. This also dovetails into what the white people’s brand of American Catholicism has become. Underlying, everything is a lot more forgiving and lot less brutal. The punishments are a lot less severe for failing to rigidly follow orders.
But all this has bled into a new tyranny that was ushered in under “Civil Rights”.
Then out of the shadows comes the old time brutality again, wearing new masks. But brutality was always creative in the masks it wears.
This time that brutality is aimed at the destruction of the white race by the abolition of all its natural rights.
Progress happens but it isn’t what we think it is. And a whole lot of brutality remains.
#5 by BGLass on 06/24/2011 - 12:54 pm
“…The thing is,that now, there isn’t a whole lot of stern Puritans or Catholics condemning each other. It’s more of a wide politically correct goo. There is not much real love in that either….”
Don’t see that at all, seems worse than ever—
“60s” seemed a Catholic-Jewish coalition— but their machinations began to bite them in the butt and affect their own families as they worked “to beat,” the protestants, who they perceived to be a power to overtake in U.S. .
Catholic-Jews are demographic of Hart-Celler, not jews (the way wn usually says). And Thee church would NOT import mexicans if they were blonde-blue Germanic prods, but blonde-blue Germanic catholics maybe, so religion is a player.
Catholic created liberation theology (Jesuits) incites catholic “newcomers” (tens of millions of catholics) after the open border act. Vat II demanded “tolerance” in the face of demographic assault. Now this “liberalizing of thee church” is presented as something for which protestants are to blame. The idea: it’s a heretic nation and the pope wrongly bent to the will of the prods by doing Vat II. In reality, liberalization was forced on non-catholics by catholics.
Takeover/ redefining of SC, while s/a Napolitano (catholic) redefine nation as “Rule of law” (dictatorship in which historical population has no voice on court.) And this— against backdrop of historical persecutions as well; also under guise of proselytizing, catholic missionaries have gone into historically prod areas, (eg: Appalachia). The “New South” is a euphemism for the largely Catholic influx, eg: towns s/a “Ave Maria,” a wasp town called Calvin…no.
From the Jewish side, there is not the same proselytizing religiously, so “PC” religion was invented for goys—- a religion that CAN BE disseminated to non-jews by jews, without them compromising themselves religiously. At this time, so many wasps have felt compelled to flee “centers of power” that nyc is only 4% wasp; other cities also. Most Americans do not know this. To me, catholics look as white as jews, lol.
In regards to “falling birth rates”.— I do not believe the Jewish and Catholic populations “falling rates” would be nearly as low as the protestants, (but have had difficulty finding numbers. Among white & non-white, the catholic population has grown by tens of millions, and the jews have grown by millions. But the wasps are declining, and that is religious (religious attack, but bound up with the anglo-saxon type).
Catholics and Jews— both wanted to wipe out wasps in the 60s, what they construed as a “power to beat” and set out to do so, whether “right” or “left”—- Catholics came with liberation theology, jews with PC, (they proselytize a religion other than their own, in effect), but the “right” from both has nothing to do with trad wasps interests, either.
Anyway— wasps NOTICE that there are no people in their ethnic sub-group— on the SC, or t.v. (Lou Dobbs and Britt Hume; even Katie Couric is jewish, the rest largely catholic). And they do see it as personal.
And— “forever wars” — For Catholics, with wasps out of way, now persecute another “heretic nation” the muslims & relive the crusades; While the Jews get Israel.
This is why lot of wn seems N&J which is just funny, like catholic and jewish ideasabout wasps, which one has heard before many times. Their individualism and isolation, etc. is an example. One could counter that with historical facts (about apprenticeships, networking, etc. In fact, THE WHOLE critique of them is that they WERE too groupy, too much nepotism, too exclusionary, right?— so this just minimizes the attacking groups’ culpability for harm done to protestant Americans. An anti-american-protestant bias is very clear on many VOR shows, etc.
Imo, it’s why more of the “Base” isn’t anxious to sign onto “wn,” as they see it as about a the Catholic-Jewish alliance breaking up. Lots of people actually like PC better than Catholicism, if they have to chose.
They would rather have to be a goy than a “heretic,” (if they have to live by somebody else’s idea of them) Ultimately, they’d like to be themselves, but that is not allowed.
So, it’s all religious, but this is tied to ethnic-sub-group.
#6 by BGLass on 06/24/2011 - 1:32 pm
“… I well understand how short of step it is to go from Calvinism into Communism, or into Nazism, or into Columbian right wing (or left wing) death squads…
Be that as it may, Calvinists did not create Liberation Theology in Columbia! And I think Hitler was catholic.
The idea that HERETICS exist must end, and that a person outside any idea is a HERETIC, but this is what is taught in catechism classes right now today, day in and day out— which is a far harsher “outsiderness” than just being a “goy” to whom others cannot rightly proselytize—
Calvin was just a step on the road to trying to get rid of this “Kill the heretic” idea. People ditched him soon enough. Now— in reality, he’s a vague idea of somebody who burned witches (nobody else ever did that, of course). Whatever the case, one says Calvin and movie-assocations mean that is connected to “Puritan Witch Persecutions.” And that was the end of it.
Catholics condemn protestantism (u.s. was a country with many of them)— as a thing that is out of control, has “too many ideas,” is “all over the map,” etc.
That is can involve free thought is a main criticism of it.
In reality, this is actually similar to what jews teach, and in this, is close (the whole umbrella of it) to being “tribal.”
Orthodox jews teach that one ‘grows’ in ideas in a ‘relationship,’ that one (a regular guy like moses) can be contacted directly by god, etc. This is anathema to the idea that Doctrine rules and anyone outside The Idea is suspect.
I’ve been to hard-core Calvinist church, as well as catechism classes and orthodox jewish training. The bottom line—- DO NOT PERSECUTE HERETICS. Now, how can that end— without ending the “heretic idea?”
Tribe first. The protestants, as a general rule, can accomodate this better through a “mask of god” sort of approach.
And from another point of view—- that is heresy.
Heresy, itself, the whole idea of it, is the problem, imo.
#7 by Epiphany on 06/24/2011 - 3:30 pm
Hitler was a Roman Catholic, as was his henchman, Heinreich Himmler, as well as most of the top leadership of the National Socialists.
#8 by Genseric on 06/30/2011 - 1:22 am
And the current Pope is (was) a National Socialist. 😉
Therefore, I think it is safe to say that we DO ‘live in interesting times.’ And we are most certainly ‘KNOWN to the government.’ So, I would hazard that we are definitely going to ‘find what we are all looking for.’
Thank you, China.
We are going to get our home gang.
#9 by shari on 06/24/2011 - 4:36 pm
I think perhaps I’m misunderstood. I think that it’s worse than ever too. I was refering to how Holy Mother Mommy Professor has more influence than past wordisms. Heresy to wordism must end. Excuse me. I mean what is CALLED heresy to wordism.
I don’t know how individual pain can be worked out. I certainly agree that people ” would like to be themselves, but that is not allowed.” I personally have to go back to “depending on Christ,” which too often is not emotionally uplifting, either, in this time. But I’m convinced the nessessary thing is our own white survival.
#10 by backbaygrouch on 06/24/2011 - 4:38 pm
Re: Epiphany & the Hitler Catholic connection.
A. Did you intend praise the Roman church or slander it? {Some of your posts make this a murky issue.]
B. Are you suggesting that Nazi ideology is rooted in Catholicism with a distinct pedigree that distances it from Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, et alii?
C. Are you suggesting that as adults the Nazi leadership practiced a religion as a politically guiding light?
#11 by Dave on 06/24/2011 - 5:23 pm
BGlass,
Don’t lose sight of the fact that the issue is Wordism in all of its forms. Some forms of Wordism are more extreme than others. Old time Calvinist Wordism was very extreme in its dismissal of the idea of innocence. In contrast, Pentecostalism is a tame form of Wordism, because it gives a lot more space to the idea of innocence.
It has to do with the violence allowed and the permission given to attack innocent people.
The “Civil Rights” Wordism we current suffer under is very virulent. It gives a large swath of permission to attack innocent people. I tremble when I hear the term “Civil Rights Activist”. You know you are dealing with a brutal person without conscience who will attack the innocent at the slightest provocation.
#12 by backbaygrouch on 06/24/2011 - 5:38 pm
Re: BGLass’ Catholic rant.
A. The 60s liberal coalition that enacted open borders and other leftist measures depended as much upon partisan Southern Protestant Democrats as it did upon Northern Catholic ones. The immigration bill was driven by Jewish interests. For the best analysis read Dr. Kevin MacDonald.
Two years ago there were two votes on an immigration bill. The first passed it; the second’ killed it. The switch votes, those who reacted to the public’s outrage at amnesty, were almost entirely Catholics. The devotion to open borders of Protestants was nearly unshakeable. Both groups were split on the issue. Jews were solid for displacing the founding stock of the nation.
The point is that your position that a Jewish-Catholic alliance, while on the issue, did exist it was not as controlling as you state. Further, from our vantage today ethnic European Catholics are far more amenable to our side than PC Protestants.
B. The lack of Protestants on the Supreme Court is a disgrace. But the seven Catholics are not the result of a pro-Catholic effort. They were mostly appointed by Protestant Republicans. A very partisan and Jewish led opposition to Protestant appointees, Bork, Haynsworth, Carswell, convinced Republican presidents that they could avoid a brick wall in a Democrat dominated Seante, which was manned by a lot of Protestant Democrats as well as Catholics and Jews, by picking off Catholic votes by sending up Catholics. What does it say about Protestant Democrats that they would not abandon the party line for Bork, etc.?
This is very much a partisan affair. No Democrat President has appointed a Protestant since Truman or a White Catholic since Kennedy. The Democrat leadership has ceded the Court to Jewish interests. Note that a majority of the Democratic votes on the Senate Judiciary that moved both Sotomayor and Kagan forward were Jewish. The Democrat party has handed that committee over to Jews by concentrating them there.
C. Whether everyone is happy about the other folks in the lifeboat that is White Christian America should be unimportant. We need each other. Our interests are the same. Simplistic sectarian rants only assist our enemies in their divide-and-conquer strategy.
#13 by Epiphany on 06/24/2011 - 8:56 pm
I have always thought that it was very interesting, that the Second World War may have been motivated by religion, on all sides.
It really seems to fit in with what I know. Certain nutty people seem to like to think that Hitler was a Pagan, rather than a Christian.
#14 by Epiphany on 06/24/2011 - 8:58 pm
I am not sure. Still, certain Traditional Catholics do seem to oppose the Second Vatican Council a lot. That much is really certain, as far as I am concerned. All seems to work out quite well. I am sure that I am on to something most significant, too!
#15 by Epiphany on 06/24/2011 - 9:00 pm
Still, the whole focus should be on the Soviet Union!
#16 by BGLass on 06/25/2011 - 10:26 am
“….The point is that your position that a Jewish-Catholic alliance, while on the issue, did exist it was not as controlling as you state. Further, from our vantage today ethnic European Catholics are far more amenable to our side than PC Protestants….”
Backbay, I really appreciate your taking me seriously. I’m not as divisive as some seem to think.
I just think ppl need to be able to take in WHAT THEY REALLY get out of a deal. Otherwise finger pointing never ends. Realistically, poor wasps (“the wrong kind of wasp,”as they call it) do worry over how they fair under a more catholic toned country and that should be simply understood by catholic people, given history, imo.
You’re more knowledgeable than me about names on court, appointments, and things, so idk about this switch vote in the government, but on the ground, protestants are pissed off, so I don’t really agree. Some in that group do run some genuine fundraiser, activist sites-groups against immigration that are national, etc., so it’s not like they’re all pc, (and many other groups fell for pc, also).
And if protestants don’t seem involved more, it could speak to different ways in which sub-groups have been attacked? Not to excuse them, but to understand them. Everyone is attacked. And —regardless of how buried— everyone is hearing through their OWN ears on some level. Eg: the blonde-blue villians on t.v. affect blonde-blue viewers in a different way than some watching redhead is affected.
So, I hear through protestant ears. They are attacked in a little different way maybe. For instance: They may be more likely, to identify as “colonists” and therefore as the stated target of “de-colonization,” (although that’s not always true as others were colonists, etc.)
My point about Rc: was just that it did get a lot out of the 60s (not for whites but for the church, so individual whites may not have gained, but overall, the church did— eg: many more populations in the u.s., seats on sc, etc.) They gained religiously, but not racially.
The U.S. protestants on the bandwagon of pc seemed (and seem) maybe more motivated by the public guilt campaigns; in the 60s, they just seemed to lose— position, power, voice, etc..
That’s my take on it, but it’s nothing personal. My goal is to be true to my self, which means my subgroup, also, state it clearly without pissing people off so that they can hear what I’m saying, and then agree over being white. I just can’t mush over things the way some people can.
“white” is a little less broad than “humanity,” but its still pretty broad for “real” people.