Hopkins, England and God's Grandeur

THE WORLD is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;	5
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.
And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;	10
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs—
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.

God's Grandeur, G. M. Hopkins.

I love this poem, it came up today in a book I have which contains 365 verses, one for each day. Reflecting on it I noticed a comparison with Chesterton's poem at the head of this post. Contained within it is a deep lament for the lost world of country beauty and goodness. But more on that in a bit.

(*)Hopkins wrote this poem in 1877. It has the shocking vibrancy and brilliance that characterises Hopkins poetry. Hopkins was seeking ways to show the 'inscape', or species of things and of words; seeking to scrape back the centuries old use of a word and discover its meaning and the essence of it. The poem is full of the glory of God and for this Hopkins uses the word Grandeur, a much less familiar term. The world as he says is 'charged' with it and he uses the imagery of lightening and electricity. Interesting is the fact that electricity was a new invention in Hopkins day so the comparison with God's charge and mans. Later we see 'the lights of the black West' fading. In other words, man's glory (his artfulness and technology) are dim, but the world God created is 'charged' with his splendor. His grandeur 'will flame out, like shining from shook foil'. Hopkins has in mind here gold foil. When looked at from one aspect it is dull, but seen in another it shines, like lightening. Here we see an image for the world as dull and made dull by man, but it really shows the Glory of God to those who have eyes to see.

God 'gathers to a greatness, like ooze of oil / Crushed', while the world is being prepared and is in preparation for Christ and the coming of the Holy Ghost, as we see at the end. God's glory is in creation and in redemption. The oil of mercy will heal us.

What I am particularly interested in are the next lines because I believe it reveals something at the heart of English radicalism. Chesterton and Belloc, among others, were often looking back to an agrarian tradition, lost in England by the onset of the industrial revolution (see Rural rides / W. Cobbett). Much that was ugly, smelling and wretched in England was down to large factories and towns and as Chesterton thought big business. England was scarred and blighted my mills and mines and the common man had lost his tools, lost his trade and his soul.

Here Hopkins, looking from a distinctly spiritual point of view saw something similar. Why was the Grandeur of God in creation and redemption not there for all to see? 'Why do men then now not reck his rod?' Why have they rejected his authority and his love? The answer: 'Generations have trod, have trod, have trod; / And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil; / And wear's man's smudge and share man's smell: the soil / Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod'.

We see here a loss of sensitivity in man over generations. All the world is 'smeared with toil', 'man's smudge' and 'man's smell'. The earth is bare, beauty is gone and man cannot see it. His senses are blocked so that nothing can get through (his is a consumerist). 'The soil / Is bare now', yet full of man's labours and we cannot see or feel our feet 'being shod'. This stark vision of man, who has a 'bleared' view of the world is very much what Chesterton had in mind. The modern world kills the soul because we are bound by 'toil' as wage slaves, we possess many things 'with trade' and yet we have no sense of God's goodness, His opulence, His grandeur.

This is were I feel Distributism has a legitimate voice. Belloc's Servile State seems to me a good representation of modern economics, but his political solutions are more horrific than the servile state. If we were to put into practice the ideas of a 'distributist state' in the Bellocian sense we would end up with a super-state, watching over every minute detail of, ensuring no businesses grew to large, forcing certain people into farms and so on. The distributist state would end up as bureaucratised, impersonal and totalitarian as the communists states of the last century. However, if we see distributism not as a political solution but as a theological one it takes on a different shape entirely. If work is transformed (no matter the industry be it finance, factory work etc.) into a true vocation, the work of God, then our captivity to the 'black West' can be broken. Work will always be toil, but it need not carry the drudge of the generations. If leisure is anything, it is the ability to worship God, to see and be with the transcendent, in fact to worship the Glory, the Grandeur of God. Thus, if we radically change our spiritual lives, we can through God's saving grandeur spiritualise the world.

'[N]ature is never spent; / There lives the freshness deep down things', not only nature but Super-nature. Deep down in hidden depths is a freshness that is always there for those with eyes to see. If we listen to our calling, the world will always be a welcome place '[b]eacuse the Holy Ghost over the bent / world broods with warm breast'. This created world is always ready for renewal by God, and though the world may stink and be 'smeared' we can find the Spirit 'with, ah! bright wings'.

(*I used the commentary of Aidan Nichols, OP in his excellent book: Hopkins : theologian's poet. Sapientia Press of Ave Maria University, 2006)

Some time ago...

I got into my head to start a Distributist blog. I still follow the paths of distributism but since I left university I have had little time to think about or put into practice distributist ideas. What with needing an actual job, moving house, getting married and then working an actual job I have found myself with little time for anything else. In the mean time we had the finanical crisis of 2008-present day is almost the biggest proof that not only have we learned nothing over this past 100 years, but that distributism is almost certainly the clearest answer to these troubles.

In any case, I hope that I can take up the reigns of blogging once more and perhaps I can talk about the books and such that have interested me over the last 2 years or so. I won't list them because it will be a many paged bibliography.

The Nature of Change

There are at least three ways to understand truth and consequently there are three ways to understand change. The three modes of truth include: 1) Statements that say, 'X is Y' and if X is Y then the statement is true, 2) The truth that if it ever was true will always be true, e.g. '2+2=4', 'God is tripersonal' etc. and 3) the kind of 'truth' of a hypothesis, 'If such and such a thing is true, then this and that will happen in a laboratory, this and that did happen therefore such and such is verified'; the law of scientific verifiability.

In the first instance, I can say 'The time is 10.45', and if the time is 10.45 then such a statement is true. The statement, 'It was 10.45, will always be true', but the statement 'The time is 10.45' will only be true when it is 10.45. Thus, the truth of the 'now' changes as things pass. So it is true that someone is reading these words at the moment, it always will be true that someone read these words, but after the person has finished reading these lines, it will not be true that they are reading these lines. This is the simply fact of change, change which is quite ordinary and which no one denies. This is why it is necessary to have conversations to the effect, 'What is happening in the economy today?', 'What is X doing today?', with the corresponding statement, 'The economy is booming today', 'X is in Paris today' and so on.

The second instance is the truth that never changes, cannot be subject to change. This is called eternal truth. The most simple form of eternal truth are those of mathematics. '2+2=4' say. If two plus two ever equalled four, it always equals four. One does not say that '2+2=4' was true for the Romans, or the Anglo-Saxons. One does not say, 'It is true that in Paris '2+2=4', but in London '2+2=5'. One does not say 'For Jones '2+2=4' but for Smith '2+2=5'. In other words, if ever it was true it is always true. It is truth from eternity, we (Man) do not make it true. God is another example, if ever God 'existed' he always existed and always will exist. Justice is another, one does not say 'For Margaret Murder is evil, but for Mary murder is good'. Murder is either evil or good, and if one or the other is always evil or good, for all. Such true imposes itself on man. He discovers that it is true and he cannot change its true. He does not make it true either, he does not say 'I feel "2+2=4" is true, or I make "2+2=4", I invented "2", "+", "=", and "4".' Put another way, it is truth that comes from above, eternally valid. Man may call it a mere tautology, but that would still not invalidate the fact that such a thing is always and absolutely true.

The third kind of 'Truth' is the most difficult and dangerous if misunderstood and misapplied. A hypothesis is posited, which is related to a problem. A test is set up in a laboratory to test if a hypothesis, the statement 'If X is true, then Y will happen under these conditions, Y did happen, therefore X can be verified'. These mean that while one might surmise that X is true one has not proved that such is the case, one has merely tested a hypothesis that has been verified favourably. Thus, hypothesises may change, become more complicated, have ever more complicated tests, and be superseded. This form of verified 'truth' can clearly change through time. No one accepts the early models of the atom as 'true', for they are indeed more primitive, likewise various new discoveries about molecular biology supersede older obsolete models. Scientific 'truth' however, presents probably the biggest problem for the concept of change, for it is the one area that the word 'progress' can be applied in the modern sense. It is undeniable for example that as a result of scientific advances we have more and more powerful technologies, more control over nature, and indeed the ability to almost invade the very 'stuff' of nature. Unfortunately it is also true that a scientific hypothesis can only be said to be true in so far as it has been verified. Even the law of gravity for example, can only be said to be a hypothesis which has been verified (quite convincingly we might say), but is not necessarily 'true'.

Change however, and progress in particular, are not a problem if a true understanding of the main modes of 'truth' is understood and how they may change through time. Scientism is a branch of the Enlightenment which, as we have said before, is most dangerous. There are wonders in the advance technology that is often coupled with a devotion to the Scientific Method. 'Science has discovered X', 'Science has created Y', 'Science has improved Z'. Yet with this comes a glaringly obvious fallacy, progress in technology, depth of knowledge in nature, the march of time to the 'old-age' of mankind, do not equate to a progress in society, depth of knowledge in general, or a repudiation of tradition and the so-called 'immaturity' of our ancestors. We may be 'in the modern age', in the 'now', we may have more 'stuff', and more kinds of 'stuff', and we may have highly complex hypothesises of the atom, the cell, a universe of strings, but none of this may be said to be progress in society in general terms. Real progress in society would be found in the moral field. Not just in an 'outer' culturally enforced morality, but in the inner true moral disposition of the soul. Progress in society would cultural, as well as moral, for the following of a cult is the only way to have a culture, and for a Catholic perspective the Cult of Christ would be followed. Christ, Saviour of all Mankind, would reign not only in public, but in private. Culture can develop on itself, improve itself, its expressions, not simply revolve perpetually. Culture would not be founded on fads and cycles, but on a real thing, the living person of Christ.

Cardinal Newman argued that without a knowledge of theology all other scientific knowledge was essentially empty. For theology, the Queen of all the Sciences, puts the others into their specific place. Since theology deals with God, the highest Being, the highest 'form', it is therefore the highest science, and all other sciences are subordinated to it, those which deal with lower levels of being, from the humane, right the way down to the lowest level of being, that of inanimate matter (the subject of physics). Making physics the highest, 'Queen of all Sciences', is like asking an atom to 'comprehend' an Angel (in fact anything that is ontologically higher than it), or like asking a one dimensional being to understand the concept of a X and a Y axis, never mind a Z.

This is rather a side point, the real point is that change, while a problem in psychological sense, is not really a problem actually. The fact that today I am in London, while tomorrow I am on the moon is no more important than the fact that one year I may be a pagan, the next a Catholic. What does matter is Eternity, and Eternal truth. One might look at the Catholic Church and say: 'You claim to hold to eternal, unchanging, immutable, infallible Truth!, yet you have 4-5 different confessions of faith! What gives?'. And this is where the difference between the 'religion of progress' and real development reside. A Truth may be truly stated, without being as developed, or as discerning. 'God is One and tripersonal', is a true statement, concerning a True thing. 'God is One, The Father, Son and Holy Ghost, the Son is Eternally Begotten of the Father, and the Holy Ghost precedes from both the Father and Son, Eternally', may be a more discerning statement of the same Truth. With the Credos of the Church each is a true statement of the unchanging deposit of the Faith, but they become more and more discerning, they express the same Truth more deeply. Rather than simply changing our 'truths' when new data arrives, or our passions change, or anything else, and denying the possibility of fixed truth, which is so often the case with the sons and daughters of flux.

The principle of development is quite simple when understood, and it is in fact the true principle of progress. For one can never progress, or even understand the notion of progress, unless one has a fixed standard, a thing to progress from. Since, Truth exists from eternity, logically, anything which brings us closer to that Truth, or is able to discern that Truth more accurately, is progress in itself. Does this mean that things do not change? Of course not, we still have truths changing. One can say here is an acorn one year, and here is an oak tree the next. Accidental qualities may be in a state of flux, but the fact that we may say 'Acorn to Oak tree' tells us that even in this world of fading, contingent, mutable, flux there are still 'substantial' realities to grasp. The 'stuff' the tree is still present, even if it all its accidental qualities have passed into memory. The same with a person: 'He is wearing green this season', 'He has this idea now', 'He was damaged by X experience', 'He now speaks German'. 'He' is still there, even if his accidental qualities may have changed, his soul, his being is still present; the very 'stuff' of himself, his 'I', are constant, if they were not then we would not be able to comprehend the changes in his accidental form. He, like the tree, may develop also, towards Truth. Thus, he may say the Apostles Creed one year, then the Nicene Creed the next, then the Tridentine Creed and finally the Credo of the People of God. All of them are True statements, all of the developments on the original Truths of the Faith, and he may have developed in his understanding of these same truths.

In a world of existential despair we feel very much that if we simply renounce our devotion to 'pure flux', to 'the nature of un-nature', to 'making ourselves, bringing ourselves in to being', to 'the immortality of time', to the 'now', and dedicate ourselves to eternity, to higher Truths, we may begin to correct not only societal ills, but personal ones as well. Let us look forward, but let us also look back. Let the 'democracy of the dead' have its vote, and then take it onwards and forwards and right the way into Eternity!

The Poverty of Modernism

"My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday". G. K. C

There is a certain fallacy, which was actually recognised quite excellently by Karl Popper, called historicism (not to be confused with the art movement of the same name). It is in fact, bound up in that same category of modernism (I mean here only a very general use of the term, that is to say, any philosophy that is connected 'being modern', rather than the particulars of certain late 19th century early 20th century movements). Modernism is absolutely tied up with Liberalism, and practically all modern errors relate to the fallacy of Liberalism (to be explored in a separate post "By Reactionary").

Popper defined historicism thus:

I mean by "historicism" an approach to the social sciences which assumes that historical prediction is their principle aim, and which assumes that this aim is attainable by discovering the "rhythms" or the "patterns", the "laws" or the "trends" that underlie the evolution of history. (Karl Popper, The Poverty of Historicism, (London, 2007), p. 3)

Popper certainly offers a strong critique of historicism based on what he calls a methodological mis-understanding of naturalism, or physical science. That is to say, he believed that the anti-naturalists as well as pro-naturalists actually misunderstand the 'true' methodology of science, and specifically naturalism. Most of what he says is true in so far as he identifies problems with the writing of history, the more seditious forms of scientism (one only needs to consider Hitlerism, Roosevelt's New Deal, et al.), and the blind faith in evolution as a law. (Popper does suffer however, from his own problems which consisting of his own brand of scientism, his brutal reductionism, and his narrowing of 'truth' to verifiable hypothesises, and reality to the ontological 'level' of inanimate matter).

The particular brand of historicism that is most widely applied, and which is most certainly the more dangerous form, is the type that looks to evolution in biology and 'applies' the same to the historical and sociological sciences. This blind faith in an upward progress in human life lies at the heart of most peoples errors relating practically any discipline. Darwinism itself, as opposed to the science itself, suffers from a certain degree of historicism and in fact relies on teleological assumptions. Two of the most common errors are the Marxist and the Whiggish (or Liberal) interpretation of history.

For Marxist historians there is an upward movement in the historical setting. Human society, human ideas, art, music, culture etc are essentially reducible to economic realities. These realities work as a dialectic, two forces a thesis and an anti-thesis must clash to form a new synthesis in society. So most typically a Marxist may say the feudal landlords were one half (the thesis), the peasants are the other half (the anti-thesis), we then see a clash of peasants against landlords in the middle ages (1381, 1524-25, and the Reformation would have been the intellectual peasants revolt), which formed a new synthesis the bourgeois and the workers, with the rise of liberal capitalism. In this model it is the economic agents that work out the dialectic of history; ideas, justice, religion all follow from that. The problem with a dialectic is that it would in theory continue for ever, and each agent would be absolved of all responsibly for his actions (for they were determined by their class status, itself rigidly defined). However, a Marxist cannot believe that the dialectic will continue onwards for ever, thus they tend to view history as a Purpose. The working out of True Humanity, of the progress of the march of time. Hence, Marx believed the 'end' of history lay in a workers utopia, a stateless, labourless time. Yet the logic of a dialectic does not allow for a stoppage, unless history becomes some sort of god, which develops to perfection through time, unless there is something outside of the mere dilectic to which is more fundamental.

Marxism is fairly easy to refute, for its own contradictions and its own narrowness expose it well enough. Whiggery on the other hand is much more difficult to attack, for its ground is ever shifting, and many see its principles as good in themselves. In its most gratuitous form it simply states that, that which is modern is better, that the past is backward, that humanity is ever improving. This more simplistic form can be seen clearly in the arrogance of the enlightenment thinkers (the very term 'enlightenment' is an indicator of this arrogance). Kant said:

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The motto of the enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have the courage to use your own understanding! (E. Kant, 'An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?' in Kant: Political Writings, ed. H. S. Reiss, (Cambridge, 2006), p. 54)

This immaturity is any state that, as far as Kant is concerned, is not 'free'. Any traditions, or traditional ideas, must be challenged for the sake of challenge and for freedom. If men submit to 'dogmas' they are unable to think properly. 'Dare to be wise!' In other words, the only way to be wise is to think, and to think ones way out of past dogmas. Kant rejects also the notion that knowledge, particularly religious knowledge, can ever be fixed. 'A contract of this kind [an unalterable dogma of faith say], concluded with a view to preventing all further enlightenment of mankind for ever, is absolutely null and void, even if ratified by the supreme power'. Kant offers no explanation as why such should be so, but simply lets it stand that 'enlightenment' is the only way that mankind can go. Kant posits then a kind of cultural relativism, but as with all relativists he is more dogmatic and rigid than any true Dogma. He constructs therefore a Universal purpose:

The history of the human race as a whole can be regarded as the realisation of a hidden plan of nature to bring about an internally- and for this purpose also externally - perfect political constitution as the only possible state within which all natural capacities of mankind can be developed completely (E. Kant,
Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose', in Kant: Political Writings, (Cambridge, 2006) p. 50)

Kant's idea of a universal history, equates simply to the asocial sociability of man working antagonistically through time, until Reason unwittingly works its course. Mankind is set on a path that he cannot see (except with enlightenment). There is a melancholy haphazardy in which wars are fought, men make stupid mistakes and so on, which brings out the ultimate purpose of history. The rational state, the perfect state, where men can be completely enlightened. Kant is optimistic about what the future will hold, because he believes Man is steadily improving through time, and his own time is better than all previous ages. This theory of progress suffers however, from the a simply mistake; it is a huge begging of the question. How, if all is change, flux, if no dogma may be laid down for all time, if no standard exists outside of man, how could one understand such a concept as 'better' or 'worse' or 'Enlightenment'? Why is the 18th century such a privileged century, that men could suddenly become enlightened, mature? Unless one simply states that one is more enlightened then there is no answer. As for progress how does one demonstrate that we have progressed? Technology, perhaps? Politics, maybe? Technology may be more powerful, sophisticated etc., but how does one measure progress in politics, economics, society, culture?

Skipping ahead a little, and bypassing the 19th century which also possessed its fair share of faith in progress, and its whiggish world view, we can still see the faith in progress in spite of the failures of the enlightenment project, and the witness of the bloodiest century of human history. Francis Fukuyama is among those whose faith in progress is so complete that he cannot think outside of it. His book 'The End if History and the Last Man' is essentially an apologia for liberal, capitalist, democracy. He writes a justification for world Americanisation and dismisses everything that it not liberal, democratic, capitalism as an immature state of human life, which will in time reach the 'old age' of mankind if it grows up.

His line of arguing is absolutely horrid, and his book is riddled with contradictions, yet he is taken seriously. The essence of his argument runs thus:

1)We have liberal democratic capitalist states emerging all over the world, even after a century of seeming failure of liberalism (the Holocaust, communism, fascism etc).

2)Therefore, there must be some way to explain why liberal democracy and capitalism are the victors on the world stage of politics.

3)There are many theories of history, including Marx's theory which are bunk. However, Hegel (one of the first to have a modern systematic theory) gives us a starting point.

4)Man's nature is he has no nature, he is completely undetermined, yet he is bound by his historical setting, or consciousness.

5)History is dialectical, that is a mixture of thesis/antithesis and synthesis, all of which is unknown to historical actors, and can only be known by subsequent generations looking at history and telling its story.

6)History is irreversible. The strongest example is science and technology. With the scientific method, new and more powerful machines could be made, Man's dominion over nature could be more complete, and technology is definitely progressed. The scientific method always leads Man to more control, and can never be lost now that it has been discovered. Therefore, history can never 'go backwards'.

7)Nevertheless, history may end, in the sense that Man may reach the pinnacle of reason, his final end. This is in built into the Reason of history, a 'Tran-historical standard'. Men work, wholly unknowingly, the dialectical mechanism of history, until they reach the 'end' freedom, and the perfect satisfaction of the thymos (struggle for recognition).

8)This just so happens to be liberal, democratic capitalism. Thus, man has progressed to the last state he shall ever be in, reached his old-age. All that needs to happen is every society on earth to 'catch up' with America, Europe and Japan, and leave their 'pre-modern' state, so they may enjoy 'freedom' and may perfectly satisfy their thymotic nature.

This is a very basic summery of his argument, it takes him an excessive amount of time to get to the point, and he re-writes his first principles half-way through his book, which is immensely annoying. However, if one looks at the manner of his argument we encounter more problems relating to modernism, and its offshoots of historicism. We have here an uncritical devotion to the 'modern', that which is 'now'. He speaks as though we are today somehow in the best position, for we have the most understanding, the most perfect system. Chesterton says, 'Tradition... is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who happen to be walking around'. Frankly, the dismissal of traditional societies and cultures merely because they can be recorded in history books, and are 'in the past' is hardly convincing. Fukuyama uses the phrase 'less reflective ages', as if St. Augustine, St. Thomas, St. Ambrose, St. Pius V, or whomever were somehow less able to think, reflect and discover universal principles. He also justifies the horrors of the past, for without them mankind could surely have not gotten to were it is now. Thus, the Holocaust, Soviet Russia, Communist China, the whole lot had to happen in order for liberal democracy to come out as the summation of human achievement and the 'end' of human development.

The final point about Fukuyama and I think the most damning, is also the one that crushes a majority of modernist philosophies, including the root problem Liberalism. It is the making of human reason, and also to human existence the highest level of being; the separation of Faith from Reason, while having a blind faith in Reason; and cultural/philosophic relativism. In reply and in simple terms man is a rational creature, but his reason is entirely insufficient for comprehending the highest levels of being. In all of the theories about history there is always a higher principle, which has somehow revealed itself to mankind in the 20th and 21st centuries. Yet how does reason discover 'Reason' in history. If all man's actions through time are merely the result of his 'un-nature', antagonisms, strife, 'asocial sociability', conflict etc. which happen to work out 'Reason' through time, such a 'Reason' would be undiscoverable. Especially in the light of the fact that man's conscience is bound up in his time. Even if 'Reason' could be discovered all of the enlightenment philosophers, and all their followers are bound up in the same inevitable historical situation. One could never know the 'end' nor the purpose, for one is always bound by the 'now', and by ones historical conscience.

The separation of Faith from Reason is so utterly ridiculous that it need not be discussed at any great length. Simply put all rational knowledge must be taken on by faith. Therefore, the most rational thing will appeal the intellect and be taken on by faith, if you like this equates to belief (assuming the will is also good). No one, for example, can live existentially, for to do so would require a complete separation of ones soul from all 'other' existence, and a concerted effort to 'exist' and to bring all 'extension' into existence at all times. Such a reality is pure nonsense, and ends in the contradictory notion of solipsism. One must have rational knowledge and faith that such is rational and therefore to be believed. If one is referring to the supernatural, theological virtue of Faith, then reason is a lower faulty, which is the handmaid of Faith, but Faith cannot not a contradiction to Reason, nor Reason Faith, for ones reason determines where ones faith is.

The final part ties in with the first two. Cultural/philosophic relativism is the primary myth of the modern world. Simply put if relativism is true, then I’m the only person who exists, I pre-existed myself, I brought myself and all extended reality into existence, there is no such thing as inter-subjectivity, and there is no reason why I should be writing an blog entry for an uncreated, insubstantial fictional world present in the extended reality of my mind. Additionally, language or any form of communication is meaningless, since it is pure flux itself, and there can be nothing, no essence whatever that can be created, or discovered, to get us out of the pure nonsense of chaotic flux, since, by having such an essence, we would necessarily have to discard relativism. If one posits something like, 'The nature of man is to have no nature', then that is the end, there is nothing to discover about man he has any meaning. Nothing outside of him, or intrinsic to him has any meaning. He cannot create meaning or discover meaning, for to do so would refute the first principle of having 'no nature'. There must of course be a fixed principle, something from eternity, which can illuminate our subjective and contingent consciences, and we must have a nature to talk about 'Man as man'. If not, then that is the end of the discussion, for all conversation, all action, all being is necessarily meaningless and incomprehensible. If the subject (the person) is the only 'actual' or 'verifiable' reality, and there is nothing outside of the subject that can be known, then the world becomes a lonely place, with the means of communicating (and communing) completely shot. The individual cannot be the only authority, Authority must exist from eternity outside of individual conscience, otherwise there is no such thing as authority.

The original point of this essay was to expose the particular errors of historicism, but by doing so we see also the primary errors of modernism, or liberalism. The other motive for this essay was to attack another brand of historicism, which is often called feminism. The funniest (and also saddest) thing about feminism, is that it is anti-feminine, that is to say the male virtues are held in such a high regard by feminists that they feel they must discard their own 'inferior' femininity for 'superior' masculinity; they must be men in order to be equal. Of course feminism has its origins in liberalism, which was derived from Protestantism. It is culturally Protestant (that is to say, it was Protestantism which breed an anti-female culture) and philosophically liberal (that is to say, liberalism, which was basically an extention spiritual autonomy to social/political autonomy, in the feminist form, did the same for women against men). In the history of the ideas, feminism is traceable to the English Civil War, with the ferment of crackpot ideas that occurred . Katherine Chidley is seen as one of the first women to 'oppose' patriarchy, entering into the public sphere, and asserting her spiritual and political automony. Historical writing on the subject however, is painfully historicist. Always is there an assumed 'universal purpose' of history for women to have their rights recognised by society, or more particularly the destruction of 'patriarchal' society by women obtaining the 'phallus'. This ludicrous doctrine, apart from being derived from abhorrent principles, and the most misogynistic men that have ever lived (Fraud, Sartre et al), is pure historicism and suffers from the same mistakes as all modernists. For example, how could any of this be known? More importantly how can this be measured, verified, even understood?

(It is amusing that the most patriarchal society in the world, the Church, venerates as the perfection of humanity, Our Blessed Mother Mary, Queen of the Universe. Protestants lost true femininity when they smashed her statues and called veneration of Our Lady, 'the mummeries of superstition'. As a result Protestants lost their perspective on femininity to such a degree that they inevitably became anti-woman).

I say with Chesterton, I am no longer antagonistic with progressives. There really isn't any point, they cannot imagine anything but perpetual change. If they wish to keep believing Thursday is better than Wednesday because it is Thursday then so be it. I am bored with arguing the point, just like I am bored with arguing that murder of Children, even for the preservation of the mother, is evil. Change must be challenged and if we succeed, we will, amusingly enough, see change for real!

Distributism: Irreligion is the Opium of the People

The evil of such a thing [Communism], because the essence of such a thing, is an idea. And those who understand a stunt, a scare, a slogan, a catchword, or a caption, never do understand an idea [hence the evil of it is never spoken of]. It is something that exists before any of its manifestations; it is something anterior to policy, a programme, or a propagandist movement; it is simply a thought.

[...]

[Communism has some good in it, but it is sought in the wrong way. The critics], ‘are right when they rebuke the Bolshevist crimes of massacre and pillage; they would be still more right if they also rebuked the Capitalist crimes of usury and chicane’

The evil should not be called Bolshevism but Marxism; or perhaps a particular policy founded on the materialism of Marx. To realise it, its opponents would not only have to endure the pain of thought; they would require the moral courage to read the literature of the people they denounce; and it is much easier to denounce it…. [a Marzist propagandist] does not justify it that it may be established he would rather establish it that it be justified. He would set the material forces at work, and treat the moral forces as if they were material forces; that is, use them rather than agree with them. Among this moral forces would be discontent; but he does not use it because he thinks it divine discontent. [He would use it to create his own contentedness]. It is rather a bestial or vegetable content; not as a question of quality, but rather of its process of production. It is imposed by forces upon men…. For instance, the hatred of religion does indeed break out into blasphemy and sacrilege, and maxims like “Religion is the opium of the people.” But this, which is the largest part of the scandal, is the least part of the evil. The more subtle Marxian carefully explains that he would not denounce faith merely because it is false, or preach abstract atheism because it is true. That is mere idealism or “ideology”; his is the practical atheism that would produce by any means the material state in which he hopes that men would be materialists. For that purpose he will if necessary be moderate, not to say hypocritical. His principle is that principles are not good until they have become practice. It is that prudence that is for us a heresy from hell; and worse a hundred flaming churches. For it is a war against the will; a denial of the primal right of the mind over its own thought and choice; a hideous nightmare of the cart dragging the horse. It is true in the sense that there can be no debate, but only war, with those who think that they cannot really think. For any conception of popular rule it is, of course, a paralysis. Materialism makes citizens as such merely passive. Irreligion is the opium of the people. (G. K. C., 'Straws in the Wind: The Crime of Communism', No. 128. Sat. Aug. 27, 1927.)

This long quote from G. K's. Weekly does bring forward some interesting points about the nature of the problems not only with Socialist/Communism but also with modern society in general. It reveals the fallacy of establishing the reality of materialism without having any basis for that reality. The materialist is not interested in setting up materialism because it is right, but simply setting it up because he feels it is practical. And surely this is logical to the materialist, for there cannot be a realm of abstract ideas, for such a notion would refute his materialism. Hence, he must set up his material reality, he does so because by doing so he can pretend that their is nothing spiritual. It also makes a telling point about the nature of evil. That it is as much an error of ideas as it is a weakness in the will. If we start from faulty premises we can never achieve right conclusions, even by accident. Likewise, if we start from true premises but have not the will to follow them we will not achieve the right conclusions.

'Irreligion is the opium of the people'. Chesterton, turns the famous Marxian phrase on its head, and in fact hits upon something that is entirely true. One of the chief reasons why Catholicism and Communism are incompatible is not simply because the former burned Churches, killed priests and all that, but that both Catholicism and Communism appeal to religious sentiments, to spiritual forces. However, while Catholicism fully acknowledges that it is a spiritual entity Marxism fails to do so. Marx would say that ideology merely follows economic reality, as Christopher Dawson puts it:

Now, Marx himself did not regard ideologies as of prime importance, since they were to him merely the theoretical reflection of social realities which are primarily economic and material. But he fully recognizes - no thinker more so - that ideology and sociology are indissolubly linked, i.e., that Capitalism, bourgeois society and Liberalism are three aspects of the same social reality.

Hence Marx,

admired its [bourgeois societies] material achievements and power, its conquest of the world by machinery and economic organization. He appreciated still more its revolutionary organization:… its thoroughgoing secularization of life. [Capitalism was the first step towards Communism]… But on the other hand Marx was bitterly hostile to the ideological side of bourgeois culture - that is to say, to the liberal ideals which the bourgeois themselves regarded as the real justification of their material achievement. [Class exploitation, was to Marx, was the real goal of liberal ideology]. (Christopher Dawson, Religion and the Modern State, (London, 1935), pp. 60, 63)

Thus, Communism seeks to continue the path of secularization of life, the subordination of man to economic conditions. It takes the place of the Capitalist society; but it seeks to destroy class exploitation. Communism actually attacks the part of Liberalism that was the continuation of Catholicism, the moral standards (rationalized by 18th philosophers), and approves the part which is in conflict with Catholicism, that is materialism, secularized life and irreligion. When a modern justifies Capitalism he does so not on grounds that it is more just, or morally acceptable, or more humanitarian, but rather on the grounds that it is most efficient, or practical, or realistic. In other words, it is not a moral system, but a practical system, one that 'works'. Here Communism and Capitalism are united against Catholicism. Inverting the hierarchy of values, a 19th century idea, and putting work, labour, or economics above morality, ethics, and politics justifying materialism and irreligion. It appeals to the base appetites. 'Satisfy your lower instincts, your material needs as much as you like'. Leave morality, contemplation to those 'superstitious' types, to 'celibates in ivory towers'. Material practicality, utility, these are things that ordinary people can understand, the base passions must rule.

We are entirely deadened to spiritual realities. Irreligion satisfies lust, and lulls us into a coma. If all that matters is the base, material realities then any system which can satisfy them on the largest scale must be the 'best system' we have. This is way a Catholic and modern find it so difficult to communicate. Not because a Catholic does not have base urges, or material ambitions, but because he has subordinated his lower state of being to his higher ones. He speaks of spiritual values, even while the word spiritual is incomprehensible to a modern. The word spiritual, to a modern, might have something to with a relegated past 'Age of Faith' where a few pious people sat around and mumbled prayers, but not something for practical people in an 'Age or Reason', in the 'Old age of Mankind'.

Yet ironically the materialist philosophies are still spiritual, again Dawson says:

Communism is the perfect example,..., for it represents the culminating point of the secularising process in modern civilization, and it is at the same time a reaction against that tendency in so far as it is an attempt to go beyond politics and in a sense beyond economics also and to restore to society a common faith and a common sense of spiritual solidarity.

The strange paradox of a godless religion and a materialist spirituality has its basis in internal contradictions of the revolutionary tradition of which Communism is the final product. For that tradition unconsciously drew its dynamic forces from religious sources, though it denied and rejected them in its rationalized consciousness. In the same way the Marxian theory of history, for all its materialism, is dependant to a degree that Marx never suspected on the antecedent religious view of history which had been formed by Jewish and Christian traditions. (Ibid., pp. 71-2)

In other words, irreligion while lulling us into a coma and drugging us with material things, is still dependent on religious sentiment, and in fact still possesses that empty shell of the Christian religion. With Communism, the State really did become God. All things were subordinated to the glory of Russia, for example. In a Capitalist state, with its de facto materialism, there is still a contradictory devotion to 'human rights', 'freedom' and so on. We also find weird pseudo-religious cults springing up, but often they present themselves as a consumer product. (You only need to walk into a local book shop and go to the 'Spiritual' section to see what I mean). Even the material sciences become a kind of religion, you only need to hear phrases such as 'Darwinism allows one to be an intellectually satisfied atheist', to realise there is more to materialism than simply Matter. The very idea that the 'Beauty' of the Universe is enough to satisfy cultural needs (while wholly absurd) suggests that there is something ontologically different from mere matter which can actually understand 'Beauty'. Thus, irreligion deadens the higher spiritual values, while at the same time expresses itself through them.

Irreligion really is the opium of the people!

Mr. Chesterton's Hat

"No one who has followed those things of interest can have failed to mark the important part played in Mr. Chesterton’s spiritual expansion and, lately, in the popular development of the League, by Mr. Chesterton’s hat. I do not suggest that the influence of Mr. Chesterton’s hat is to be compared with the influence of Mr. Chesterton’s head, for they are things in their nature different. But I do feel that when we have paid proper tribute to Mr. Chesterton’s head, a distinct and separate homage is due to Mr. Chesterton’s hat.

Deliberately I suggest that the homage to the hat should be distinct and separate; because it is characteristic of it that it very seldom performs its normal function of covering his head. I speak figuratively, I would have you know. It is continually being blown off his head, to illustrate the ravishment of man’s dignity; and being chased down the road, to illustrate the splendour of human endeavour; and being blown on to his head again, to illustrate the wondrous bounty of Providence; and being sat upon, to illustrate the divine simplicity of humour: in short, its life is passed in a perpetual whirl of wild hatly adventure.

Even in the comparatively rare moments when it does repose on his head, it is rather as a banner than as a hat. Then it is the symbol of individuality of his personal freedom and of his personal dignity. Before an astonished world it flaunts the legend: “Chesterton-- one and indivisible”. And in this way the hat has so faithfully served Mr. Chesterton and, through him, us; has so often gone out of its way, as a hat, to provide us with a parable; has sacrificed in our interests so much of the normal ease and comfort of a hat’s life; that it seems inevitable that it must take an honoured place in the symbolism of the Distributist state. I do not suggest that it will be adopted as a national crest, for I take it that in a Distributist state each man’s hat will be his own crest; but undoubtedly it will be regarded with honour as the prototype of all proper and heraldic hats.

And here, at weary last, I come to my point, which is that, in view of this, it is of the utmost importance that we should leave for descendants an exact and graphic account of the Chestertonian hat, as it appeared in life. If we fail in this it is certain that strange heresies will spring up around it. In a century or two, perhaps, there might be erected, bestriding the Thames, a statute of Mr. Chesterton in a golfing cap. Conflicting schools of thought might visualise it as a bowler, or as a top hat, or as a crown, or as a shako, and base all their philosophy upon the fallacy. And it is certain that out of the welter of evidence there would finally arise the inevitable scientist, who would prove conclusively that the hat never existed, that the myth merely embodied humanity’s yearning throughout the ages for hat-perfection.

But let me make it quite clear that I do not offer myself for the post of Recorder of the Hat. I lack the talent and vivid and accurate description which the work must demand. If a mere impression is of any value at all to record, let me say at once that, sensible as I have shown myself to be of the hat’s unique public services, as a hat it simply repels me. Indeed, in a list of “Reasons for Thanking God that I am not Mr. Chesterton,” which I once wrote, for my souls good, drew up, the third or fourth article read “I do not have to wear Mr. Chesterton’s hat.” To those who know only my hat, this sentiment my seem fanatical, unreasonable and violent; but those who know Mr. Chesterton’s hat, will, I think, understand.

On the whole, I think that the work should by done by some expert, a hatter’s auctioneer, perhaps, who would be able to appreciate the thing and note its features with technical accuracy. And appended to his record, there should be certainly be a short biography of the hat. Is it, in fact, as I have heard disaffected men declare, a mass-produced hat? Or did Mr. Chesterton, as I prefer to believe, years age, in is early youth, weave and fashion the thing with his own hands, from the materials produced from his own ground? This is an important matter, and it should be made clear.

And now let me apologise to Mr. Chesterton for having deliberately written upon his hat. If I am to vindicate myself at all, it must be upon the grounds which he once took when he vindicated, in the abstract, the conduct of a man who sat upon another mans hat. He declared that the action might be excusable if the motive was pure, as, for example, if it were done for the amusement of children. I have written for the instruction of children, of generations unborn. And I claim in further extenuation that, while Mr. Chesterton can, so long as the inexplicable desire possesses him, continue to wear is hat even after I have written upon it, it is unthinkable that any man could wear again a hat upon which Mr. Chesterton had once sat." ('Mr. Chesterton's Hat', G. K's. Weekly)

Distributism: What is Change?

(The Storming of the Bastille)

It seems to be the penalty of those who say things are always changing, that they never realise when things really change. There are many modern examples; some of which are now rather ancient than modern; notably that of the grim grizzled Die-Hard the Darwinian. His whole theory is one of endless change; and yet he cannot recognise or reconcile himself to the obvious change of a challenge to a hypothesis nearly fifty years old. He talks as if the very shape and nature of a man might melt and alter, as in his own story of the monkey; he often seems to agree with that German Darwinian who said that man is something to be surpassed; but he instantly revolts at the very idea that Darwin could be surpassed. While he is presumably ready to discuss whither the Superman will have three legs or nine noses, he will not extend such flexibility from noses to notions; least of all to the notion which is the foundation of his own nightmares. Or again, the Socialist who set out for Utopia at the end of the nineteenth century insisted that men would change their conditions, even the most primary conditions of owning the clothes on their backs or looking after the health of their babies; the one thing he never contemplated was that the Utopians who were this changing their homes and habits might possibly change their Utopia. Therefore to this day the older type of Socialist is still vaguely bewildered by the Distributist; and cannot understand why his is not merely a Capitalist or frankly a Communist. So again the Capitalist, when is also was a sort of Futurist, always saw the future filled with more and more machinery or finance; he was solely occupied in proving that modern men would soon have as much machinery as they wanted; he was rather mystified when yet more modern men want to know whether they can have no more machinery than they want. The Daily Express capitalist will always hail hopefully a men machine or new invention; he seems incapable of seeing a new situation. He really seems to think that England, merely by announcing that she will never fight anybody, can always go on bullying everybody. (G. K. C. 'A Socratic Symposium- Straws in the Wind', G. K's. Weekly, July 18, 1935, Vol. XXI, No. 540)

Chesterton strikes a chord here about something that ought to be remembered. Change is a fundamental factor and reality of life. Someone might say then, 'Well Chesterton has a point, these men the Darwinians or the Socialists could not recognise a change in the situation, but are you New-Distributists not making the same mistake as them?'. I answer that, while it is true that we no longer live in the 1920s and 30s, and that era, its problems and conditions are no longer with us, we live in an age which has yet to wake up to Chesterton's advice. Who can deny that we still live with the Darwinists who cannot admit that the theory could change, except in cosmetic details, or an age when liberal democratic capitalism is actually called the 'end' of history, that man will never change because he has reached his final destiny. I also believe that when some truth has been struck, particularly one that is common to mankind, that whatever the poverty of past attempts or schemes to implement it, the scheme cannot be identified with the truth as such.

This is certainly the case with Catholicism. Its dogma's are universal, in that they appeal to universal principles are above the merely parochial. ‘Go forth and baptise all nations’, a simple mission, restore the race of Adam, in Second Adam, ‘restore all thing’s in Christ’. However, the implementing of this, and the dogma itself are not completely identical. Men can err, no system can perfect men by simply being a perfect system. Thus, a bishop may cause damage the faith, believing himself to be in faithful service. His office may be perfect, he is not guaranteed that same perfection.

A similar line of arguing, I believe, may be made for Distributism. It is a peculiar modern obsession that property is somehow a stigma, that families are something that you are thrown into without any choice, that babies are the single curse of women and that work is the means to leisure. Most men and women today could not imagine that any argument could be brought to challenge these modern peculiarities other than a belated, hypocritical rightism, the mere appeal to ‘traditional’ values. They cannot conceive that their minds may be captured in a cult of change, (perpetual revolution, ‘Obsessive Contemporaneity’, ‘Trendomania’, fadism) that admits of no change to the cult. They are incapable of accessing higher levels of being, they are fixated with the simply inanimate, material, extrinsic, externalistic aspects of ontology. Finally, they are obsessed with the words ‘Freedom’, ‘Liberty’, and ‘Modern’. They declare that Capitalism, enlightenment, science, democracy grants the most of these things, gives the most of it to the most people, and that each of these things are good in and of themselves. They cannot admit of a challenge to these words. They merely stand up and declare ‘We are Free, liberal and modern’ without any substantive proof of it. What if Freedom means something different, what if it is a metaphysical, not merely physical concept? What if liberty is not simply, ‘freedom from tradition’, but is rather ‘freedom from sin and error’? What if we are all ‘modern’ and that such a concept begs the question, what is progress?

Nonetheless, we see men and women dedicated to the ‘ever new’, without ever challenging the ‘ever new’. Distributism is ‘ever new’ however, in the real sense, because it is also ‘ever old’. The first fact about Distributism is that it is a tried and tested dogma. Where widely distributed property is present, and a real respect for the family as the centre of civilization visible then society is stable. Whenever, these things disappear we lose our senses, and even our ability to sense.

Do I think that Distributism as it was expressed in the 20s and 30s needs to be followed with a kind of fideism? No. But neither did the Distributists of the Weekly. The goal is a sane economy, the method is a subject for debate. The scheme may change, sanity (because it is based on sense) never changes. Chesterton once said of Christianity, that it had not been tired and found wanting, rather it had been found difficult and left untried. The same might be said of Distributism. Would it be hard to create a Distributist state in the 21st century? Sure. Should difficulties deter us? Surely not!. (This is the second time this essay that I have used an example paralleling Catholicism. I do not like to ‘secularise’ Catholicism, but illustrations and parallels can be drawn here since Catholicism is in a sense the ‘model’ of truth, being Truth itself).
To conclude then we should turn to Chesterton:

Now we do not admit that anything moves endlessly on one direction in so simple a style; but in practice we often feel that the progressive is the person who had not moved at all. When early in every year there comes that hopeful revolution, that happy revolt, when the hedges are shooting and the bull rushes out, we do not believe that the world will go on growing greener and greener forever, until every man is a Green Man and every flower a Green Carnation; and everything, animal, vegetable, and mineral is given over to the wearing of the green. But we do see something strange and sad about the Poet of the Spring still sitting and declaiming that the winter is past and the rain is over and gone, when he is sitting in the snow all covered in icicles; exulting in change without noticing that there has been any change; even in the form of a chill. And there are some proposals, and one in particular, which remind me rather of an attempt to perpetuate departed Spring in the middle of winter, by painting everything bright green; even to the point of wearing Green Shirts.

Now to my instinct Distributism is a change of direction and not merely an acceleration of advance. And the Distributist is called a stick-in-the-mud; not because he wishes to stick in any mud; but because he refuses to march any further along the particularly muddy path which has been called the path of progress. (Ibid.)

Do we want to ‘go back’ to a better time? Sure. Are we going to do so by failing to admit that things change? Absolutely not! Let us be intransigent. Let us 'stick-in-the-mud'. But let us remember that we still need to go forwards, just forwards away from the cliff edge, and guarding Truth!

Tradition, and the Problem of Traditionalism and Modernism pt. IV

It is perhaps not obvious at first that there exists a problem with the words Tradition, Traditionalism and Modernism. At first glance one might be tempted to put the first two words together and place as a diametric opposite the last. However, a closer look at the words reveals that such an approach is based only the surface appearance of the words. A Traditionalist is someone who has a mystical devotion with something he sees as traditional, or in a tradition. A Modernist has a still more mystical devotion with something that he sees as modern, or pertaining to a modern trend. In this way there is little substantial difference to a Modernist and a Traditionalist, in the strictest sense. Before I continue I should qualify that if someone where to ask me 'What are you?' the briefest response I could give would be 'A Traditionalist'. At the same time I do believe that Traditionalism wrongly assumed is the same as Modernism.

Traditions are something entirely different. One can follow a 'tradition' of modernism for example. It is simply a way of thinking, being, or acting transmitted through generations. A Traditionalist is one who follows a concept of something Traditional. However, the problem of course, is that cultural, political, economic, social, religious modernism (liberalism if you like) is a tradition, it has traditional linkages. This is why a modernist and traditionalist may both be seen as identical they both have an idea of the past, and 'bring it forward' towards the future. When approaching the difficult question 'What should I do now?' it appears that one has a choice, 'Traditionalism v. Modernism', 'Conservatism v. Liberalism', 'Capitalism v. Communism', 'Right v. Left'. None of these however, is really a choice, for they all of them amount to the same thing, minus a few cosmetic differences. Pro-life v. Pro-Choice in a debate differs only in cosmetic detail, (not that in reality the 'choice' of abortion is only cosmetically different from the choice of life, thank God), what I mean by this is that both parties are in a sense pro-choice and pro-life. The real answer to the problem lies not in choice v. life, but in the important question 'What is good?', 'What will help to attain the Good, the True and the Beautiful?'. Otherwise, all that can come of the debate is 'What is the best synthesis between life and choice?', the question is pure nonsense.

What does this have to with Tradition, Traditionalism and Modernism? Simply this, if we opt to be Traditional Catholics we opt for a living Tradition, not a dead Traditional idea. Otherwise, we are no better than a modernist who opts for a dead 'modern' idea. 'Living water', Our Lord promises that if we ask we will have living water. When we live we always live in the modern world. St. Thomas was a modern when he was alive, as was St. Augustine or St. Pius X. We never live 'in the past', we can only live 'in' the now. We can be within a tradition and it be as dead as being within a modern idea. Since Our Lord is alive now, as He ever was and as He ever shall be, He is the one we can live 'in' now. He is living Tradition, in the sense that he is ever with us generation on generation. St. Augustine could be as much a Catholic as anyone today, because he could be with Our Lord. He did not need to be a Traditionalist, working within a husk of a man-made idea, clinging to his own intellect and ideas. He could be 'within' a living Tradition that would last ages upon ages. So it is today; to be a Catholic is first and foremost to be 'in' Christ, to be with Him, to try to love Him as he Love's us. To be a Catholic is emphatically not to be a Traditionalist, or a neo-Catholic, but to be 'in' the Christ, to have 'living water'.

Cardinal Newman said that early on in his life he was aware of two things; himself and his Creator. This is the perfect balance between immanentism and transcendalism, over emphasis on either side will always lead to problems. What this means is that for every single Catholic he must know himself and he must know, however imperfectly, his Creator. He must be in communion with God, in order to know himself, to find himself. Thankfully, man has some help, for he would simply be unable to bridge this gap between himself and his Creator unaided, without the Church, a living Tradition. Chesterton called the Church ever new and yet ever ancient. We commune with God, through Our Lord. Our Lord is wed to the Church, it is His. So we as the Church are wed to Our Lord, in communion with him, and hence the Church is 'alive' is 'living' as Our Lord 'lives'. Thus, when I call myself a Traditionalist I mean that I live in Tradition, the Church, Our Lord. I do not live in traditions which are dead. I do not live in Newman's ideas, or Augustine's ideas. I am alive today, I am modern, yet I commune with Him, the One, the 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived', the immutable, unchanging, ever-present, ever-one God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

This may seem an odd distinction to make, but I believe that it is essential to understanding what it is that a 'Traditional' Catholic is fighting for. If he is seduced by the false dichotomy of Traditionalist v. Modernist he will find nothing but the empty husk of a synthesis. In any case as I grew in understanding of Catholicism, my reading of Reformation and Counter-reformation history and my going through the Catechism, I immediately hit upon what might be called the contemporary crisis of the Catholic Church. The crisis is so large and on so many fronts that no single thing can sum it up. 'The Spirit Vatican II' is not sufficient for merely assigns an arbitrary date, time and place and all errors to that thing. 'The spirit of the age' is another expression, which is more embracing than the former yet it lacks a concrete instance, real reality to behold. Generally, I think these expressions get used by Traditional Catholics to explain certain things and I do not criticise the intention, but merely question the meaning of the expressions. What does it mean when one says, 'Owing to the Spirit of VII....', do you mean the Council itself?, the implementation of the Council?, a false spirit? (I know that it will be objected that the meaning can be clarified by context, judgement and so on, however ideas like "the spirit of" stick in the mind, and are not to necessarily clear. What exactly is a 'spirit of' a council, any council, for example?)

Nonetheless, I was immediately involved with the 'Traditionalist' controversy. I had for about a semester been attending a Novus Ordo Mass, in English in place of Sunday services at the Anglican Church. I must confess that as I attended these Masses, I did not perceive any substantial difference between them and those I was missing in their favour. I pointed this out, that I couldn't see the difference between a Catholic Novus Ordo Mass in English and the Common Form service of the Anglican Church. The people conducted themselves much the same way, the priest carried himself in the same way, the interior of the Churches were practically identical, and the words of the Mass were identical. If anything Anglican services were conducted with more rigor, more attention to detail, and with more reverence than these Catholic Masses, so I said. My friend was sceptical, saying there was a huge difference between Catholic and Anglican Mass, just like there was a huge difference between Anglicanism and Catholicism.

Nonetheless, I stood my ground, insisting that there was little substantial difference, I was soon invited to see a Traditional Mass. This was the first time I had seen, if you like, the underbelly of Catholicism. It would not be to much to say that without the Mass the Church would not exist. The difference between the Traditional Roman Rite and the Modern is extraordinary (no pun intended). The whole thing was conducted with reverence, Introibo ad altare Dei, mea culpa, silence now, beautiful vestments, genuflections, bells, kneeling (a lot of kneeling), mea culpa, ALL LATIN!!!, and then it was over. It past by my senses and I couldn't make head nor tails of it, I had not the mental or spiritual tools to understand its significance (I still don't, not fully, nor do I think I shall ever be able to fully comprehend its significance until, please God, the end, no matter how much I understand it now).

At the end I was asked what I thought about it. It probably wasn't the right question, however I said that I have never seen anything like it before, that there was a vast difference between that and the Anglican and Modern Mass. I did begin to attend Traditional Masses more regularly, I was given a missal and slowly I began to follow what was going on. I also spent a good deal of time before and after Mass praying with the prayers for and after communion. This was all happening while I was studying the Counter-Reformation.

I remember also that the Bishop of Southwick was at the University to give a talk on 'Interreligious Dialogue'. I went along for curiosity sakes and came away thinking that what he said made sense. My friend insisted that he had basically talked Catholicism into insignificance, making the point that there was no point in dialogue unless there was to conversion to Catholicism. It was almost as though Catholicism was not true and the point of talking with other religions was to agree on how untrue Catholicism was. I defended the Bishop believing that this was an over reaction; the words 'Vatican II' came up, talk about confusion in the Church, and fear that I might be put off by it. I went away and spent some time on the internet. I have no idea where I went, or what websites I visited, but after about a week or two I came back to my friend and told them that I basically agreed with what they had said. The 'problem' of Vatican II was just another thing, something pray about, but after all Our Lord was to be with the Church until the end of time.

No doubt by the summer of the first year of University I was Catholic in my mind but not in practice. It seemed to be an age, each day passed and I was seemingly no closer to being received. I began my instructions in the Christmas semester, although I knew quite a lot of what Father was saying I waited patiently while these instructions were given. By the Easter of that year I had been received, had first Holy Communion, Confession, and Confirmation. It seemed to go on very slowly and yet it was only a matter of a few months. Intellectually I was becoming more Catholic, more importantly spiritually I was becoming more Catholic. The more I read the more I was convinced of Catholic truth. Every issue became a theological one. I have yet to read an effective repudiation of Catholicism, since it can be defended Historically, Philosophically, Theologically, Logically. I never had, nor do I have, all the answers, but whenever I asked a question I could get a Reason-able answer.

Incidentally, I happen to like this amusing Chesterton poem about counter-conversion:

"The Roman Catholic Church had never forgiven us for converting Sir Arthur Conan Doyle from his agnosticism; and when men like Mr. Dennis Bradley can no longer be content with the old Faith, a spirit of Jealousy is naturally roused" A Spiritualist Paper. (G. K. C.)

She sat upon her Seven Hills
She rent the scarlet robes about her,
Nor yet in her tow thousand years
Had ever grieved that men should doubt her;
But what new horror shakes the mind
Making her moan and mutter madly;
Lo! Rome’s high heart is broken at last
Her foes have borrowed Dennis Bradley.

If she must lean on lesser props
Of earthly fame or ancient art,
Make shift with Raphael and Racine
Put up with Dante and Descartes,
Not wholly can she mask her grief
But touch the wound and murmur sadly,
“The lesser things are theirs to love
Who lose the love of Mr. Bradley.”

She saw great Origen depart
And Photius rend the world asunder,
Her cry to all the East rolled back
In Islam its ironic thunder,
She lost Jerusalem and the North
Accepting these arrangements gladly
Until it came to be a case Of Conan Doyle v. Dennis Bradley

O fond and foolish hopes that still
In broken hearts unbroken burn,
What if, grown weary of new ways,
The precious wanderer should return
The Trumpet whose uncertain sound
Has just been cracking rather badly
May yet within her courts remain
His trumpet- blown by Dennis Bradley.

His and her Trumpet blown before
The battle where the good cause wins
Louder than all Irish harps
Or the Italian violins;
When armed and mounted like St. Joan
She meets the mad world riding madly
Under the Oriflamme of old
Crying, “Mont-joie St. Dennis Bradley!”

But in this hour she sorrows still,
Though all anew the generations
Rise up and call her blessed, claim
Her name upon the new born Nations
But she still mourns the only thing
She ever really wanted badly;
The sympathy of Conan Doyle
The patronage of Dennis Bradley.

(P.S. I realise that I may have sounded a tad critical of pro-life movements, I am absolutely not against them. I realise that they are reactions against a monstrous reality, that they need all the help that they can get, and that if they stop just one murder in a million that are doing some positive good. It is the fault of 'intellectuals' and cranks that we have even to discuss the question, 'Is it right to kill a baby?'. Even if this question is asked the general answer will be some mumbling 'Its just a blob', or 'No'. My real problem is the reduction of the question to whether one is in favour of 'life' or 'choice'. This is a load of nonsense, I personally am in favour of life and choice, but not a synthesis of these two 'ideas' merely a correct understanding of the objective truth of both of those things. Nonetheless, any pro-life activity that I can support I will, particularly Catholic pro-life, and please God we can end the abortion holocaust soon and forever.)

Matin Luther and the Counter-Reformation pt. III

It is an amusing irony that my conversion to Catholicism was aided primarily by my study of the various heretics. I choose as one my second semester topics a module called 'Martin Luther and the German Nation'. It was to be a close examination of the man in the context of his country. Generally however, it was focused on Luther. I remember sitting through my first lecture, I had followed, generally, the lines of argument that were being put forward, we were discussing the 95 theses I think, but as a whole most of the discussion went over my head. Not only did I not really know what Luther was saying, but I had no idea why he was saying it. I thought to myself, 'I need to know what he is attacking, before I can begin to understand his attack'. The rest shall we say was history.

I resolved to look at what Catholicism actually was, I hoped that by doing so I could understand what it was that Luther was saying. I related as much to a Catholic friend of mine, saying in a miserable sort of way: 'I don't understand half of what Luther is saying, I think I need to understand Rome', to which the reply was rather sarcastically, 'Oh dear!'. Of course meaning that it was no bad thing that I had to understand Rome.

I set about this task in a most sporadic way and if anyone undergoes such a task it is advisable to stay away from the Internet. The Reformation is still a polemical topic, especially among more radical Protestants. I remember coming across websites such as 'Jesus-is-lord' and Jack Chick publications. Here one can find some of the most hideous bigotry and vile hate that ever could be issued forth. It did not fill me with confidence in Protestantism to see so many irrational, ahistorical, lies being spread. One can find sheer nonsense, like 'The King James Bible 1611 version are the only inspired Scriptures, all others are corrupted by Rome', and 'Rome has being persecuting "True Christians" the Baptists from 300 AD through to the present day, millions of martyrs', or 'Rome has got the names of every Protestant in the world one a super-computer in the Vatican so they can hunt us down with a new Grand-Inquisition, servicing the New World Order', and so on ad infinitum.

To say the least this did not much impress me, but I thought that there were always bound to be a few odd balls around surely Dr. Martin can offer some sanity. However, such was not the case, after all I wondered how prudent was it to give this advice:

If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.

Men are weak, we have fallen natures and even after baptismal regeneration we bare the mark of a weakened nature. Apart from the falsity of the previous statement how much more appealling could it be to those whose inclination it is to sin (that is all humanity, including the saints, with the exclusion of Our Lady). What presumption could lead men into such madness! We may be looking forward to a day when we shall be perfected in Christ, where we cannot will that which should not be willed and it is true that we don't have it now, nonetheless at what point did sinning become acceptable. Nowhere in Gospel does Our Lord say, 'Just believe in Me and everything will be alright'. He says Faith heals, 'Your sins are forgiven you', 'Thy Faith has made thee whole', but at what point does he say, with Faith there is not such thing as Sin or that there is no consequence for sin!. This was just a minor point, but it brings forward an important point, the Fallacy of Justification by Faith Alone.

There are many very excellent refutations of this horrid and fetid argument, but I think one of the most powerful is simply the fact that the word 'alone' does not appear anywhere in the context of the Letter's of Saint Paul with the word 'Faith'. Furthermore, St Paul tells us that we need Faith, Hope and Charity, and the greatest of these is Charity. Faith, to me always seems to be the necessary precursor to living in Christ. That is not to say that all the theological virtues are not necessary, but it would be hypocrisy to act as if one believed, or had Faith while one didn't. Which is precisely what St. Paul warns against and condemns so vigorously.

The second point about Luther's doctrine is the rejection of Church authority based upon the abuses committed by the Papacy. Luther however, encounters a problem, if the Church is no longer the Church, 1) how do we know what Our Lord's Will is and 2) by what authority do we ensure that we understand Our Lord's Will. It leads then to the second and equally horrid argument of By Scripture Alone. This is even more absurd than by Faith alone, for whereas St. Paul does speak very often of the primal importance of Faith in his Letters, nowhere does anyone speak of the only source of knowledge or authority being invested in the Scriptures. How would we know what the Scriptures were, when they do not attest it themselves, without some authority to decree it? What about all the Christians in the first days of the Church, who had no Gospels nor Letters? In other words, how would we know which books from antiquity to trust and which to reject? What about the many and various interpretations that one can inject into the Scriptures? I can say that the Holy Ghost has guided me, but what about all the other various people who say the Holy Ghost has guided them? There can be no satisfactory answer to any of these questions. A Protestant must say that his man made doctrines regarding Christianity are true, simply and absolutely, in which case he is simply saying he is the Pope, or he must say that there are a set of 'core belief's' that if one subscribes to them one will be saved, everything else is just extraneous and unnecessary. Both teachings are contrary to the Scriptures.

Very early on I realised the consequences of the doctrines of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, they were logically untenable and were entirely suited to a particular time and place. They were essentially like any heresy, exaggerations of Catholic Truth's which suited their practitioners and appealing to weakened human nature.

One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, this formula came from the earliest ecumenical council of the Church. Some Protestants take upon themselves to reject the Credo, conveniently enough, but a majority agree that it is basically good. What is remarkable about is that none of the Protestant communities come close to fulfilling this part of it. Protestantism at least lacks that Universality which Rome possessed not only cross-culturally over the world, but through ages on ages. It certainly lacked Holiness, Luther was hardly a model Saint, an perverted king's political and adulterous expedience is hardly model statesmanship and so on. It also lacked Unity, once the Protestants were 'freed' from Rome they battled endlessly about what was 'true', 'pure', and 'primitive' Christianity. Each group of Protestants had their own little ideas concerning the various aspects of Christianity. Just one example being the various doctrines relating the the Holy Eucharist; Consubstantiation, Transmutation, Symbolism, Memorial and any other way of describing the Holy Sacrament; anything will do so long as it rejects Rome. Schism's appeared all over the 'Protestant Communion', and strangely enough 'unity' was no longer important, only 'True Believers' mattered. As for Apostolic only the Anglican Communion could say that it had retained Bishops and yet it had departed from Apostolic Christianity with its denial of the Papacy.

On a less doctrinal note however, my bigger concern with Protestantism was its provincial nature; that is both spatially and temporally. Protestantism appeared only in the Northern parts of Europe, and in France, and in these cases was essentially the whim of a Prince who had some political axe to grind with the Papacy or the Holy Roman Empire. Aside from that, why was it in the 16th Century that God decided to 'Reform' that Church in the manner of a revolution. God, Our Lord, had promised to be with the Church until the Consummation of the world, indeed he was the Bridegroom, yet he had left it to the 'anti-Christ' to reign for 1300 years before 'enlightening' a mad monk, an adulterous king, and a cruel Manichean of the 'True Gospel'. There was another problem with historic Protestantism. It is undeniable that modern secular humanism has its spiritual roots in Protestantism. That is not to say that those who were first engaged in 'reform' were aiming for the secularization of culture, but that the man centred religion of action that characterises Protestantism certainly left open the possibility of liberalism. Christopher Dawson most perfectly describes this as follows:

The civilization of medieval Christendom was essentially dependent on the ecclesiastical organization of Europe as an international or rather supernational unity. It was irreconcilable with the conception of a number of completely sovereign societies such as the national states of modern Europe. The medieval state was a congeries of semi-independent principalities and corporations, each of which enjoyed many of the attributes of sovereignty, while all of them together formed part of a wider society - the Christian people… The medieval unity was torn in sunder by a centrifugal movement, which made itself felt alike in culture, in religion, and in political and ecclesiastical organization.

In the South this movement took the form of a return to the older tradition of culture. The Renaissance in Italy was not a mere revival of scholarly interests in a dead past, as was usually the case in the northern countries. It was a true national awakening…

In Northern Europe it is obvious that the movement of national awakening had to find a different form of expression, since there was no older tradition of higher culture, and behind the medieval period there lay an age of pagan barbarism. Consequently Northern Europe could only assert its cultural independence by a remoulding and transforming of the Christian tradition itself in accordance with its national genius. The Renaissance of Northern Europe is the Reformation.

…, in the Reformation, we may see a Nordic revolt against the Latin traditions of the medieval culture. The syncretism of Roman and Germanic elements which had been achieved by the Carolingian age, was terminated by a violent explosion which separated the medieval culture complex into its component elements, and reorganized them on new lines. Thus the Reformation is the parallel and complement of the Renaissance as the one made the culture of Southern Europe more purely Latin, so the other made the culture of Northern Europe more purely Teutonic.

Hence it is no mere coincidence that the line of religious division after the Reformation follows so closely that if the old imperial frontier… Finally Calvinism, which is the form of Protestantism that appeals most strongly to the Latin mind, has an irregular distribution along the frontier line itself… [it is] well represented in the two Western kingdoms - England and France. The former was mainly Calvinist, with considerable Catholic, and Catholicizing elements. The latter was Catholic with a strong Calvinist minority and a Calvinizing influence represented by the Jansenists. But in each case the dominate religion is strongly national. In England the Church is
Protestant, but above all Anglican; in France it is Catholic, but also Gallican.

It is true that the Reformation, like the Christological heresies of the 5th century, originated as a religious and theological movement, but its historical importance is due less to its religious doctrine that to the social forces that it came to represent. Luther himself, the religious leader of the movement, is intellectually a man of the Middle Ages rather than of the modern world. His ideas were, in the main, those of the men of the 14th century, Ockham and Wycliffe and Hus. He was entirely alien in spirit from the culture of the Italian Renaissance, and even from the Northern humanists, like More and Erasmus, whom he describes as “the vilest miscreant that ever disgraced the earth”. His originality is due not to his intellectual position, but to the force of his emotional life. He embodies the revolt of the awakening German national spirit against every influence that was felt to be foreign or repressive; against asceticism and all that checked the free expression of the natural instincts, against the whole Latin tradition, above all against the Roman curia and its Italian officials which were to him the representatives of Antichrist and the arch-enemies of the German soul. “The Lutheran Reformation,” wrote Nietzsche, “in all its length and breadth was the indignation of the simple against something complicated.” It was “a spiritual Peasant Revolt”.

Consequently Luther’s religious work of reformation and simplification amounted to a de-intellectualization of the Catholic tradition. He eliminated the philosophical and Hellenic elements, and accentuated everything that was Semitic and non-intellectual. He took St. Paul without his Hellenism, and St. Augustine without his Platonism.

…it produced an accentuation of the purely occidental elements in Christianity. Faith was no longer a human participation in the Divine knowledge, but a purely non-rational experience- the conviction of personal salvation.

The Divine was no longer conceived as pure intelligence-…- the principle of intelligibility of the created universe. It was regarded as a despotic power whose decrees predestined man to eternal misery or eternal bliss by the mere fait of arbitrary will. It may seem that this denial of the possibility of human merit, and the insistence on the doctrine of predestination would lead to moral apathy and fatalism. This, however, was not the case. Protestantism was essentially a religion of action. By its hostility to monasticism and asceticism, it destroyed the contemplative ideal and substituted the standard of practical moral duty. And it is this new attitude to secular life-…-that Ritschl and so many other modern Protestants regard as the greatest and most characteristic achievement of the whole movement“. (Christopher Dawson, Religion and Progress, (London, 1945), pp. 177-181)

This rather long extract from Dawson's book summarises for me the historical problem of Protestantism, or at least demonstrates an area of weakness. Protestantism created the religion of progress because it divorced man from the Divine. It made his actions on earth somehow separate from his spiritual life. 'Believe and you will be saved', but for the time being make the most of life, Action not contemplation. It also shows how Protestantism could only be effective in certain places, certain cultural conditions. When those traditions were lost, then all the Protestantism offered was a private choice, separate from any public culture of religion. It was also Protestantism that fermented that most peculiar of all modern ideas; the separation of Faith from Reason. As though the intellect and the will were somehow so separate that one could not influence and effect the other. As if that which one puts Faith into is not that which appeals to the Reason, the intellect. With Protestantism there is no room for rational thought, merely emotions. Hence, Faith becomes separated from Reason, the 'this-world practical living'. In Catholic culture there could be no such divide. The Faith is reasonable, and Reason leads to Faith. The whole world is transformed, 'to restore all things in Christ', everything is sacralized. Contemplation goes with action and action with contemplation.

This more cultural historical argument certainly appealed to my mind. I was struck by how completely different Protestant culture was to Catholic. Even in the most mundane of all things. Protestantism seems almost like a grand attempt to take away everything that is human and everything that is Divine and replace them with a set of formulas to 'take on in Faith', then anything goes.

I have entitled this essay ‘Martin Luther and the Counter Reformation’, but before I get the Catholic Reformation let me indulge in a minor transgression. One of my favourite saints (not that they all don’t deserve my veneration) is Saint John Fisher, the little know Martyr Bishop of Rochester. John happens to be the name I took in confirmation. Henry the VIII actually got the title ‘Defender of Faith’ from a book he wrote refuting Martin Luther’s book ‘The Babylonian Captivity of the Church’ which attacked the Seven Sacraments, and the Papacy. St. John Fisher may have advised the king in its writing, but it is unlikely that he wrote it. In any case Dr. Luther in all his glory replied to Henry’s book in characteristic style:

With such blindness and madness has our Lord Jesus Christ stricken the whole kingdom of the Papist abomination that for three years now the Cyclops of their infamous host warring on Luther alone are still at a lose to understand for what reason I am at war with them. In vain do all the books that I have edited and published testify that I seek this one thing only, which is that the Divine Scriptures be given the pre-eminence that is right and just and that all human inventions and traditions be taken out of the way as most hurtful stumbling blocks. For inflicted with chronic insanity they bring nothing against me but the statues of men, the glosses of the Fathers, and the acts of rituals of past centuries. Those very thing which I denyand impugn and which they themselves confess to be untrustworthy and often erroneous. Of such a character is the book of the King of England who does nothing but perpetually cast in my teeth the traditions of men, glosses of fathers, and the use of past centuries. He rages, he curses, he is all vituperation and viperous because, I wish to be considered more learned, more holy and more important than all the rest of mankind.

This new god (Henry VIII) fixes as necessary articles of faith for us all, whatever has been said or done by the custom of men, which articles unless I believe he makes of me in his furious anger a heretic. I know not what kind of monster, where pray did this new god The King Of England come from, this creator of new articles of Faith? Till now I have heard of but one God with the right to make articles of Faith, and to require belief in them. In fact this new god who goes beyond the other madmen brings in a new madness. For the other madmen have endeavoured to pervert the Scriptures that I have brought forward and give them another meaning, but have dared nothing without alleging and boasting of Scripture support. But this new god, marvellously confident and cocksure, that owing to his divinity whatever he says must be done, or has already been done, testifies by his own confession that he wishes to set aside my chief foundation, and leave it for others to attack, while he only attacks what I have built upon it. He wishes, with straw and hay to fight against the rock of the Word of God. So that one cannot tell whether he acts so from sheer madness or whether Henry’s stupidity is innate in Henry’s head. Justifying a proverb, ‘A man must be born a King or a Fool’.

Then let not King Henry impute it to me, but to himself if he meets with ruff and harsh treatment at my hands. He does not come forth to battle with a royal mind or with any drop of royal blood, but with a slavish and impudent, and strumpet like insolence and sillyness, proving nothing by arguments but only by cursings. And what is more disgraceful in a man, and especially a man in the highest position, than openly and deliberately to be, so that you can recognise him as such as a sophist, a preacher of ignorance and virulence. He would deserve some consideration if he had erred like a man, but when knowingly and designingly, this damnable and offensive worm, forges lies against the majesty of my King in Heaven, it is right for me on behalf of my King to spatter his Anglican royal Highness with his own mud and filth and cast down and tumble under foot the crown which blasphemeth Christ. If I have trampled down for Christ’s sake the rival of the Roman abomination after it had stood itself in the place of God, and had made itself the ruler of kings and of the whole world, who is this Henry? This new Thomist? This disciple of the idle monsters? That I should treat with respect his poisonous blasphemies? Let him be the defender of the Church, but let him know that the Church of which he boast and upholds is the Church of the Scarlet Women, drunk with wine of her fornications. Both that Church, and him, who I consider its defender, I will attack with same firmness, and with Christ as my leader I will demolish them both.

See here the unhappy Satan, how he crawls, how he wriggles, how he tries subterfuges, but in vain he will not escape. I have rejected and do reject the Canon [of the Mass] because it is quite openly against the Gospel and gives the name of Sacrifices to what are signs of God, added to his promise and are given to us to be received by us, not to be offered up. But I, against the sayings of the Fathers, of men, of Angles, of devils, place not ancient usage, not multitudes of men, but the Word of the One Eternal Majesty the Gospel, which they are forced to approve and in which the Mass is clearly said to be a sign and testament of God, wherein he promises he Grace confirming it with a sign. This is Gods word and work not ours, here I stand, here I sit, here I remain, here I glory, here I triumph, here I laugh at the Papist, Thomist, Henry, Sophist, and all the gates of Hell. Nay at the sayings of men however saintly and at the fallacious customs. The Word of God is above all the Divine Majesty makes me care not at all of a thousand Augustine’s, a thousand Cyprian’s, or a thousand of Henry’s Churches should stand against me. God can utter or be deceived, Augustine and Cyprian and all the elect could err and have erred. Answer me now Lord Henry, be a man now defender, write books now. Thy curses are nothing, thy accusations have no effect, thy lies I despise, thy threats do not frighten me, thou art stupid in this passages as is a block and at other times art nothing but words.

Having triumphed over the Mass I think we have triumphed over whole Papacy. For upon the Mass, as upon a rock is built the whole Papacy, with its monasteries, its Bishoprics, its collages, its alters, its ministers, its doctrines, and leans on it with its whole weight and all these things must fall with the sacrilegious and abominable Mass. So Christ, through me, has begun to unmask the abominations standing in the Holy place and to destroy him whose coming was through the operation of Satan in all wonders and line miracles.

In conclusion, if my ruff speech towards to the king of England offends my man, let him have this for his reply. I am dealing in this book with heartless monsters who have despised all my good and modest writings, and from my humility have become more hardened. In spite of that I kept from the virulence and lying in which the kings book is [laden] nor is it much if I despise and bite this earthy king, since he has not feared with his words to blaspheme the king of heaven, and to take away by his virulent lies from His Holiness. The Lord judges the nations in righteousness. Amen.”

This passage demonstrates for me a further weakness in Luther. He does not attempt to refute Henry's arguments. Instead this passage appears as the ravings of a madman. His petulent, virulent, rhetoric cover the fact that he does not present an argument in return. He meerly sneers at his opponant, in this case Henry, and declares himself a winner. St. John Fisher never descended into this sort of shouting match. He was always firm, but charitable. This is true of all the Saints of the Counter-Reformation. They really are sainty, if one looks to the founders of Protestantism compared with the loyal servants of Catholicism one encounters a marked difference. It did not matter even, for Luther who he attacked, they might have been on his side, but for their minor disagreements on some doctrine or other. Hence, Protestantism started out a divided house. It really justifies the adage, 'Outside of the Church is only Chaos. (This returns to my point from the last post, Catholic saints actually are saintly, and amazingly so)

It just so happened that while I was doing this course on Martin Luther I was also doing a course on early modern Europe. This included the Reformation more generally, it also included the Counter-Reformation, the Wars of Religion, the English Civil War, all of them in very general terms. This was a very interesting module, I just so happened to study in greater detail Spain. Here the Catholic Reformation was strongest. The Hapsburg monarchs remained loyal to Rome. It has long been established and understood that Catholic Spain has been the subject of ‘Black Legends’. Needless to say a majority of popular history relating to Spain is sheer nonsense. Philip II was not only a good king, but he was a devout Catholic as well. The inquisition is also the subject of a black legend, ‘millions’ can be seen in books. Frankly, when I encountered the lies and distortions of history that had been perpetrated by popular, protestant or secular historians I was not filled with confidence. I could not understand why the Church had such bad press. I remember that a friend of mine said that they were confused by a statement made by some anti-Catholic writer ‘I think I may be unpopular for saying this’ and then following on with an anti-Catholic rant. In actual fact, the way to ensure that one gets everyone gets on your side is to make a popular anti-Catholic statement. (Sex scandals, dark ages, conservative, backward, medievalist, integralist, perennialist, hate monger, war mongering, monarchist, anti-modern, un-progressive, not with the times, stuck in the past, your opinion etc. etc.)

In any case while I was getting to know early modern Europe I was also getting to know something of the Counter-Reformation. The Council of Trent greatly impressed me. Here was a Church evidently suffering, seemingly defeated by Protestantism, simony, nepotism, a superstitious clergy and laity, decadence, indifferentism, and general all round worldliness, suddenly emerging triumphant. Pope Paul III called the council in 1545, he was the last of the Medici Popes, it carried on through several popes and closed in 1663. It marks a major turning point in reform in the Church. It effectively wiped out all the clerical abuses, including pluralism (holding of more than one benefice, or office, not the modern dictatorship of relativism), it demonstrated that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture were equal parts of revelation. It confirmed the seven sacraments, it codified the Scriptures, including the books considered 'Aprocrypha' by Luther, and denied the doctrines of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura.

More interesting are the Counter-Reformation saints: John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Ignatius of Loyola, Francis Xavier, John Fisher, Thomas More, Pius V, Francis de Sales, John Houghton, Philip Neri, Vincent de Paul, Peter Claver, Jerome Emiliani, Peter Canisius, Peter Fourier, Edmund Campion, Peter of Alcantara, Francis Borgia, Robert Francis Romulus Bellarmine, Cesare Baronius to name a number of them. It would be impossible to give details of all of them, however just the sheer volume of Saints is incredible.

All in all, I left for Easter in a daze. I saw on the one hand Martin Luther and the Reformation, an exercise of personal will against common sense. On the other hand I saw the Catholic Reformation, a triumphant restoration, creating some of the most magnificent cultural pieces of Music, Art, Sculpture, Buildings, Devotional works, bursting with holiness and piety, true reform of abuses and holding itself together against both internal strife and the sieges of the Ottomans. I had also lost all confidence in evangelical religion, with its anti-intellectualism, and biblical fideism. I found little of substance in current Anglican religion just an empty husk, of a past religion, to put it mildly I felt a definite sense of the 'Real Absence'. While at the same time I was coming to know more and more of 'Romish', 'Popery'and 'Popedom', 'superstition', 'priestcraft', 'scholastic sophistry' and all the rest. That is to say I had finished my catechism, and was wondering how to become a Catholic.

The last sacraments I received in the Protestant rite came actually from my Grandfather. It was the Easter Communion service in the Methodist Church. I remember approaching the alter rails thinking, 'I am Catholic in all but name, yet here I kneel ready to receive'. I crossed myself, received the sacrament, sat and regretted having come to the Easter service. I have not set foot in a Protestant Church for the purposes of worship since. There was another thing that was on my mind at this time as well, namely Tradition. The Mass, Vatican II and everything that constitutes 'Modern' Catholicism. This is the subject of another post

To be continued...

(P.S. I have in this Post quoted excessively long extracts. I generally avoid this, as it often gives the impression that author has not understood the thing he has read, or that he is lazy in his researches. I have opted to quote these passages however, because I prefer for them to speak for themselves, particularly the Luther quotes. In the case of the Dawson quote, his eloquence is such that I felt it a disservice not to let him speak for himself. I hope the quotes are not so tedious a thing to read, I beg your patience)