The theological week.

There is so much going on at present that I need to set up a second weekly post. Firstly, the alliances that tried to get enough judges into the US court system to stop the GloboHomo agenda have failed. Horribly. It is time for a bit of Partianship. Senator Hawley in the USA wrote this and has hope. I don’t. I think the US Consitution is gutted and it is being worn by the progressives as a skinsuit.

It’s time for religious conservatives to bring forward the best of our ideas on every policy affecting this nation. We should be out in the forefront leading on economics, on trade, on race, on class, on every subject that matters for what our founders called the “general welfare;” because we have a lot to offer, not just to protect our own rights, but for the good of all of our fellow citizens; because as religious believers, we know that serving our fellow citizens—of whatever their religious faith, whatever their commitments may be—serving them, aiding them, working for them, is one of the signature ways that we show a love of neighbor. It’s time for religious conservatives to do that.

It’s time for religious conservatives to take the lead rather than being pushed to the back.

It’s time for religious conservatives to stand up and speak out rather than being told to sit down and shut up.

And because I’m confident that people of faith, of goodwill, all across this country are ready to do that, and want to do that, and have something to offer this country—and every person in this country, whatever their background or income or race or religion—because of that, I’m confident in the future. But I’m also confident that the old ways will not do.

So, let this be a departure. Let this be a new beginning, let this be the start of something better.

Senator Hawley

The answer to all the bullshit going on — and anyone who follows the current narratives knows that common sense is ten paddocks back — is Christ. Christ did not come to us because we were perfect. Do not argue from the current situation. Argue from first principles, which must bring one to Christ and the cross,

In this, I find refuge to be for this world, in a way that does not collapse itself into the world system, that does not attempt to find ‘critical’ tools from this world system; but instead has the capacity to bear witness to this world, of another world, the heavenly city, come down in Jesus Christ. I have tools in and from the power of the Gospel Hisself, ones that are personally oriented, without analogy, ones that are sui generis, and that simply trust that God’s action in Christ, in His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension is what this broken world needs in order to become un-broken. What this means for me is that I don’t have this sort of dualistic rupture between a transcendent God, philosophically conceived, and how that God might relate to the world based upon my own powers to discover and thus prescribe ways forward that in fact are not from God but from my own powers to discover. This is why Christians who are prone to wander this way, to seek refuge in ‘critical’ tools have space to operate this way; and at the same time presume upon an “orthodox” doctrine of God. This has been their method from the start: i.e. to think God, not first nor slavishly from God’s election to be for us as revealed in the incarnation and cross of Jesus Christ, but instead to methodologically think God from an un-graced [pure] nature, in the name of this God, and then grammarize Him in such a way that He is concordant with what we have negatively discovered of Him by contrasting Him with our finitude (analogia entis). This method carries through, you see; don’t you? If we can think God this way, we can surely discover other things in nature. We can develop systems of justice, and identify critical analytic tools and ideologies that are simply inherent to our natured natures. The epistemic ground is not in God’s ontology, but in ours; an abstract humanity based on a concept of election that is not grounded in the God-man, Jesus Christ, but God’s ad hoc choice of particular individuals per the absolutum decretum.

I just threw a bunch of deep and even technical points of theology out, in the above paragraph, that I don’t have time to develop further here. But suffice it to say: Our doctrines of God matter, and how we think God, and where we think we think Him from has all sorts of real life consequences; including the way we engage with politics, and the BS that the world throws up at us in ways that seem like an outright demonic onslaught. If our resource for countering these things are in critical tools that we have discovered, as corollary with the way we have come to ‘discover’ what God is, by our own ‘essential’ powers, then we are going to be up “shit’s creek” (please pardon my language, I don’t normally cuss, but the times seem to call for it more and more these days). Our only hope is if we find resource in the sui generis life of God for us in the Gospel; you know, the ‘POWER OF God,’ and stuff. More to say, always more to say, but this is enough for now.

The Evangelical Calvinist

The return to first principles will look to outsiders as a regression from the current progressive state. This is wrong: it is a radical rejection of such. The current division is not between those who would reform the church and those who want every accretion of tradition: it is between those who obey Christ and those who obey the World. Given that half the clerical orders in every branch of the faith I know of seem to want to obey the world, it is not only reason that pushes us to reaction, but a visceral disgust.

Adam is an example here. He. is finding that being Catholic is not enough, nor traditional Catholic, traditional Catholic, but something older: he is looking for the old faith, that was lost before his youth.

There’s a meme that the mormons use when referring to Christian Churches, “Every Christian Church contains pieces to the puzzle of serving God, and we believe we have more pieces than anyone else.”

That’s not really true. All Christian churches have all the pieces to the puzzle of serving God. It’s just that a lot of Churches have a crapton of extra pieces that they keep trying to stuff into the wrong holes, and a lot of churches are intentionally hiding a lot of pieces so that they can stuff ill-fitting pieces to the wrong puzzle wherever they can.

Catholicism has more extra pieces than most, and is stuffing more holes with wrong pieces than most.Today’s Catholic leadership specialize in stuffing holes with the wrong pieces. If something is corrupt from top to bottom, it doesn’t matter how pure it started out.
Dire Badger, Pushing Rubber Downhill (comment)

Brother Mundabor accepts (as does Adam, as do I) that our church is deeply compromised: we have a medieval opinion of bishops — as Dante did, we see them in hell. But that means we compromise on much.

With V II the Church gave us, together with many other mistakes, a second-class Mass. Second-class, not sinful. Second-class, not something that would be even a grave matter to attend.
Speaking of drinks (and letting aside the sacramental aspect at the Mass) we were accustomed to wine. One day, the Church told us wine is a drink for stuffy old people, and Coca Cola is the new drink the Church gives to you: bubbly, fizzly, young, dynamic, in tune with the new times, good for young and old, and apt to have many more people get at the table.
Coca-Cola is sugary, superficial, vastly inferior to wine in everything, pretty much of a child’s drink compared to it. But it can never be a sin to drink Coca-Cola; particularly so, when the Church gives it to you as the standard drink.
Now, I wish for the disappearance of Coca-Cola as Church drink, and to the return of wine – in its good time – as the only drink at the table. But I can never consider the drink the Church gives me a poison, though I will always say that as a drink it is vastly less, for lack of a better word, thirst-quenching or nourishing than the wine.
I have never made a secret of my position. I have stated very often on this blog that I attend the NO mass regularly. I even tour the land attending at Masses here and there to get the temperature of average Catholic parishes out in the V II wasteland.
Why, then, do I support the SSPX without any criticism? Because the SSPX deserves my support without any criticism. What they do is too important for all of us for me to start nitpicking on something in which, I am absolutely sure, many within the SSPX also disagree. In the matter of mass, the SSPX – or at least some of their members – do show some siege-mentality. Frankly, I do not care. It’s not that there is a precedent, because the situation of the true Church offering you Coca-Cola instead of wine, and prescribing that as the standard drink, is new.
I can fully understand those priests who refuse to celebrate the Novus Ordo because they consider the drink an offering that they feel they should not be forced to offer.

I’ve seen the table dispensed of and individual portions — wine packaged with a wafer in the foil above the wine — used in congregations. For pragmatic reasons. I’ve seen the rubrics minimised. It does not stop the validity of the table, and we are commanded to recall the death of Christ in the service. Beyond that is debate — though my Papist friends will say this paragraph is so reformed as to break the magisterium — which they know has been corrupted in the last century.

Snough of this. The battlelines are clearer. If you are not for Christ, you are against him, and our elite rejoice in being against him.

Don’t be among that horde.