Friday, September 19, 2014

Britain remains Great: Scotland chooses to stay



  • In a close vote, Scotland chooses to remain in the UK. A glorious moment for the mother country, best for both Scotland and England. God save the Queen!
  • Priestly celibacy and Christian community.
  • Word is Cardinal Burke's being fired from the Curia, effectively being retired. Church people can be jerks to each other and even personally heretical; in other news, the sun rises in the east. (Brideshead Revisited: the English Catholic Church in the '20s was four groups trying to blackguard each other.) I've seen worse; I'd say Catholics are at Defcon 4 now. In the '70s and '80s it was Defcon 3. Defcon 1: go to the SSPX. (Fellay for cardinal; Lefebvre for saint. Give the latter 100 years.) In other words, if you understand the teachings of the church, you won't leave because of Pope Francis, say Benedict's still really the Pope, or be a sedevacantist.
  • Quest'anno, è miracolo! Buona festa di San Gennaro: St. Januarius miracle repeats in Naples. Lodato sempre sia il bel Nome di Gesù e di Maria.
  • From Bob Wallace:
    • White-man voodoo magic. Like the cargo cults, people who think fuel comes from the magic gasoline fairy, and that the way to solve poverty is to print (computer-click) more fiat money.
    • Omegas murdering alphas. The manosphere's a map, not the terrain. Beneath the bluster (après moi, le déluge at the Château: sure, civilization's going to hell but happy hunting; get some while the getting's good), Roissy actually says civilization is good, better for all, including betas, which are most men, and women; men and women need each other and are happy to have each other, a society of all alphas would self-destruct.
    • Marriage as a completely broken institution. We did ourselves in with contraception and no-fault divorce long before it was cool to pretend two men can marry, which logically follows from our changing the meaning of marriage. So lots of betas (like Leif Erikson, frivorced by a "Conservative Christian Mommy Blogger") and cat ladies are left broken, wondering what the hell went wrong.
  • The rise of cool evil in popular fiction.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Talking to a Brit

"Are you from England? Ohmygoooood! I love your accent. Say 'shag.' Do you know Kate Middleton?"

Seriously, this was the starter: The SNP are the Seriously Nasty Party.

I'm not surprised. Makes me wonder now "nice" the American rebels were, beneath our civil religion's hagiography of them (the victors wrote the history).
Alexander: Do you know about the highland clearances, about Thatcher's destruction of industry, suppression of the Gaelic language, banning of gay rights etc.? All laws lead from England pushed onto Scotland without consent.
I understand Thatcher ran roughshod over longstanding but inefficient industries, throwing a lot of people out of work but for the economy's overall health, which is why a lot of British people hate her.
Not everything she did was bad, but it was the demonisation of those who were "others", different that is so unforgivable.
She wasn't conservative by American political standards: pro-abortion and I understand pro-gay.
No, that's the point, she was strongly against gay rights, as well as linguistic ones. She banned mention of homosexuality in school sex education, meaning that if a gay student had relationship issues a teacher wasn't legally allowed to advise, not to mention not talking about safe practice of gay sex when HIV was up and coming.
Thanks for the history. Was she for open immigration?
That I don't know, but I doubt it. I know that she was strongly against Celtic languages, against gay rights, shot down a *retreating* Argentinian ship, privatised all sorts of services that just happen to now be far behind the rest of Europe in terms of quality of service (rail!!), demonised gays, the poorer side of the working class... Not to mention the arts.
"The trouble with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money." I'll have to look up the rest. Britain was right about the Falklands, defending their own people, who wanted to remain British, even right under Argentina's nose.
It's on the surface a clever quote. But let's look into it. I am, for my age, a *modestly* high earner coming from a lot of hard work. I pays high rates of tax, compounded by extra "foreigner tax" due to my work being very international. I am not only happy to pay such money, but grateful. Why? Because those around me who either can't or haven't made the best notices in life and this don't work as much or do work even harder but earn less have a better quality of life than they otherwise would. I DIRECTLY benefit from this by having a better educated and happier populous around me leading to a sense of greater safety and also more connection within communities, more to talk about etc. not to mention the services I get. So it's not other people's money, it's my money and every other taxpayer's money benefiting not only others but also me, directly.

I wasn't talking about whether or not Britain was right to defend the Falklands. I
WAS talking about a ship that was retreating and thus not eligible in any way to be fired upon.
But YOU should have the right to decide how to spend your money, be it for a holiday villa or for community charities. Not the government. That's the classic American way and I imagine the British one as well. I understood what you meant about the Argentine ship. I don't have confirmation of that. Do you mean the British sub sinking the General Belgrano?
I do! I didn't come to be out of nothing. Without society, it's protection, education etc. I wouldn't be who I am so it invested in me, and I in turn am investing in the next generation.
But the government has taken the choice from you. If you want to live simply and give most of your money to philanthropy, great. Should be YOUR call.
No, it hasn't. It isn't asking me to pay back anything it didn't already give to me. Also, why should it be my call? I don't live alone, but in a society. Unless I want to live on a deserted island I should be required to contribute to society.

It's definitely not the British way of thinking. Again this is where that term British is so vague. The vast majority of Scots very much share my understanding of society. There will be exceptions, but they are small. A lot of England would see it your way, but often not a majority of England, a large minority of it. Certainly Wales doesn't share that opinion. And that's the trouble: a more right-wing England can basically choose the prime minister for Scotland and Wales, and that's not very democratic.
I know. I lived in Britain.
Ah, apologies! Then you know exactly what I mean.
I know that before World War II much of Britain was Dickensian poor; people in parts of London would starve to death. The average British serviceman thought socialism would end all that, and that's what he was fighting for, what he was hoping to come home to. So in '45 Churchill was voted out and it came to pass.
Indeed. Perhaps if England hadn't tried to conquer the whole world but instead focused on helping its own people like the talented but small European nation that it is it would have been much better off...
Maybe. "Small is beautiful." But the empire wasn't all bad. It created my country.
I agree, it wasn't by any means. But for the people of England, I think a path closer to our small north European neighbours' would have been far more beneficial. That's one of the reasons I'm convinced that Scottish independence will be great for England too, in the long run.
I wouldn't want a world without the Anglosphere; our culture as obscure as Sweden's, for example.
Whoa... I'd far rather have Swedish culture than anglophone culture spread that much, though make it Danish or Norwegian. That said, those countries don't care how spread they are, they care about keeping their traditions, and about caring for those who live there, two things the English speaking world hasn't done nearly as well as they have.
That's sort of the point, Alexander. They didn't spread. Nature abhors a vacuum. What if anything would have replaced the Anglosphere? I imagine something less humane.
David: I make that point that the welfare state worked quite fine before the 1960s and the problem of mass immigration and multiculturalism that followed.

I am no fan of Thatcher. She was vastly overrated and had the good fortune to be there just as the Cold War ended though she also recognised the danger of the EU when it was a little too late. However, she did nothing about the problems of immigration Britain still has today and handed Zimbabwe over to Robert Mugabe.

The election result in Sweden where the Sweden Democrats won a big share of the vote means that many Swedes evidently do not agree with Alex. Interestingly, many SD voters are immigrants, especially non-European Christians (Assyrian, Coptic, etc.) and secular Iranians, who would have a pretty damn good reason to support them...

Religion, politics, and the motivation trifecta


  • The motivation trifecta: autonomy, mastery, and purpose. All of which I have at my job. I'm left in peace, I can write a sentence and do Google research, and I create something that drives business to our customers.
  • Would an independent Scotland be a more anti-Catholic one? My guess is the Presbyterians, even lapsed, are still more anti-Catholic than the Anglicans in England. Scotland also has a big ethnic-Irish immigrant Catholic minority.
  • Some at least soi-disant Satanists have been media attention-whoring lately with publicity-stunt "black Masses," trying to get conservative Catholics to react and succeeding. I say starve them of attention; they're hurting themselves. This just in: indoctrinating kids under equal-time freedom of religion. It's an interesting "religion," not directly about doing evil but about choosing to serve self and take revenge, plus ridiculing religion. It starts out as "edgy atheism" and then it just goes into bowing to the devil. They worship the eternal loser. They that worship him become like unto him and all that... I'll bet a lot of it besides "edgy atheism" ("do good... unto those who deserve it") becomes EXACTLY bad religion: making a deal with the devil as god by doing certain rituals correctly so you think you control him and he owes you what you want.
  • Who are Orthodox converts? 1. People who married born Orthodox. 2. Intellectual ex-evangelicals. A distant 3. Ex-Catholics escaping Vatican II. Background post.
  • "The Uniates."
  • An astounding comment from an AWRV parish newsletter: “Nowadays, some Christians are being martyred by incompetent or insane bishops in some Protestant Jurisdictions, while others are being martyred by corrupt and arrogant bishops and demonic clergy, such as Roman Catholics (see Editor’s disclaimer above… we do not invite litigation). I pray that these Christians may be brave and tough enough to find the true Church. Of course, our bishops aren’t perfect, but I don’t think our martyrdom comes from them.” Discuss.
  • Ask not for whom the bagpipes blow, priests get in trouble about Jews and gays, not a hate crime because the victim's white (there is no "hate crime"/thoughtcrime, only crime), and a transgender picture book for kids (encouraging them to erase the line between make-believe and reality).
  • Ted Cruz's lying circus.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

The separated brethren, and more

  • "Does anyone here know where one can find an Orthodox critique of the late 1990s Roman Catholic-Lutheran World Federation Joint Declaration on Justification? I would love to see a serious review of this document by a good Orthodox theologian. Has one been attempted? I wonder if this is a document that might help unite us." The idea that the Christian East offers a Catholic way out of that battle with the first Protestants is exciting. I wonder, though, if it's necessary. It seems the church and the mainstream Lutherans have answered this, though not at the level of defined doctrine. Faith vs. works was always a non-issue. Other issues ecclesiological (is the church just where the true word is preached and the sacraments duly administered, or must we be under lawful bishops?) and theological (the Mass: Christ's sacrifice made present or just a commemoration?) remain. The Lutherans are our close cousins, reminding us of the primacy of God's love and mercy (salvation as a free gift); we're like the older brother in the parable. Our cousins reminds us in the church of who we are.
  • "Beyond Justification: An Orthodox Perspective by Valerie A. Karras (though I haven't read it) is advertised as a response to the joint declaration." Valerie Karras is a Modernist. That's like reading Hans Küng to find out what Catholicism teaches. No. Find formal statements from the various Orthodox churches' holy synods, if there are any.
  • "I haven't read much Karras, but she definitely represents the more 'reformation' side of Orthodoxy. She seeks out a 'pristine' Orthodoxy which is 'untainted' by Western thought." Bending so far to be un-Roman it becomes Protestant. I can see Western intelligentsia Orthodoxy doing that. (Not baba/yiayia Orthodoxy.) Tearing down "Western captivity" (the Catholic scholasticism the Greeks and Russians adopted for their own purpose, creating a true church, only not Catholic) and by so doing falling for nth-generation Protestantism (feminism, etc.). Reminds me of the politically correct professor tearing down the canon of Western literature only to assign Valley of the Dolls to show how cool she is, as if Jacqueline Susann were from Mongolia. In short, if you think you can avoid Modernism by turning your back on Western Catholicism, forget it.
  • If you accept TULIP on faith, Calvin's as logical as any Catholic scholastic theologian. Once knew a Southerner, upper-class Episcopal irreligious to begin with, who became PCA Presbyterian when he moved to the North for a few years to get his Ivy League degree. People who heard his accent assumed he was a born Baptist. Smart man. If you accept his premises, his faith makes perfect sense.
  • Joel Osteen. This self-help is good as far as it goes. Trouble is it doesn't go nearly far enough, nor does it explain penance or redemptive suffering (the martyrs, etc.). Dropping self-defeating thinking is great; I'm sure he helps a lot of people. But his doctrine falls short. I know he has no theological training; he's always been a good-looking media expert, and I love his accent.
  • He seems to me to be the Protestant analog to the Catholic social-justice crowd. Both leave out redemption and salvation which is the only REAL message of Jesus's life. To say that Jesus came to teach us to how to love understates why the Word became flesh. Yes, He showed us how to love through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Sacrifice, redemption, & salvation. Everything else that is good in Christianity proceeds from this sacrifice (sealed by the Resurrection). Note that I am NOT putting down social justice. Just saying it should be placed in its proper context. Good analogy. Both are mostly this-worldly, the left erring for society, the right for selfishness. If I remember rightly, he and his minister father who started this congregation were Baptists. I don't know if he's affiliated with a denomination; Baptists don't have to be. They're an offshoot of the Congregationalists.
  • What if an Eastern Catholic were elected Pope?

Two Orthodoxies?

Orthodoxy’s “not my mess” but it would be train-wreck interesting if Constantinople and Moscow do split up, the battle royale in official Orthodoxy, more than ecumenist vs. anti or Old vs. New Calendar (the biggest official Orthodox church, the Russian, uses the Old, as does the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the Ukraine). The now-toothless second Rome vs. the powerful third, with its empire, natural-gas hold on Europe, and nukes, the only Orthodox country that matters geopolitically. It seems there’d be two Orthodox churches, besides their Old Calendarist splinter Greeks and the nationalist split of the Kyiv Patriarchate from the Russians. The ex-Communist countries, the OCA, and ROCOR would be with Moscow; everybody else would be with the Greeks. Most American Orthodox are Greek, by the way. That scene would be at sixes and sevens as the British say. Which one would have the best claim to be "the Orthodox Church," if it can be said there is one? Neither one would be more likely to come back to Rome so for us it’s all moot. Ecumenical talks would continue but separately with each faction, I guess.

The '50s: bad permissiveness? Also: Online Eastern-churches fighting


  • The '50s were a mixed bag. A book review pointing out the era's highlights, such as the high point of American Catholicism, but also paleo-conservative criticism. The era's blind faith in and love of "progress" caused Vatican II. Beware of lefty nostalgia; the rot had set in. That said, I think Dr. Spock gets an undeserved bad rap. He wasn't the same as his image and I understand he was common sense for the many postwar moms, after earlier, crackpot "modern" theories of child-rearing. Like Pat Buchanan I'm not bent out of shape by early rock and am a fan (but see the problems the paleos do), unlike the Beatles and what followed. Just a continuation of r&b: the kids still jitterbugged. Jerry Lee Lewis and Chuck Berry are still with us.
  • The Facebook Eastern-churches slugfest. They really ought to rename "Catholic & Orthodox: Steps Towards a Reunited Church": "OicwRs and Ex-Catholics: Steps Towards an Imaginary Church (Real Catholics Are Idiots)." Reminds me of ARCIC: the two sides' liberals getting together and agreeing on mush nothing to do with either church's teachings. Want real ecumenical talks, no bull? Have the Fraternity of St. Peter and ROCOR sit down together! "I would say that calling the Divine Liturgy 'the Mass' is a large insult." "Nah, it's just John being his socially awkward self." Even the last tsar wasn't that stuck up. If I believed in Orthodoxy I sure wouldn't want OicwR Catholics projecting their fantasy ecclesiology onto me. There are two exceptions in that group, an Orthodox priest (Antiochian) who patiently explains what his church really teaches and is blown off (OicwR disrespects the Orthodox as much as it does us), and a born Ukrainian Catholic who seems not to buy into OicwR (most Ukrainians don't, and most Greek Catholics are Ukrainian) but wants Catholics to fight Russia for the Ukrainian Catholics' sake (no — Russians are estranged Catholics and we want to bring them back). The house theology is "no more than a warmed-over and slimmed-down version of the Anglican branch theory, with no antecedents before the 16th/17th centuries." Yes, and I say it's a distortion of us, not of Orthodoxy, for all their snobbish anti-Westernism (don't you dare call it Mass): we recognize Orthodox bishops so we recognize that they have the Mass; all of their defined doctrine is true.
  • Open borders: Unlike slavery the left and mainstream right can dress it up as charity and being cosmopolitan, when they're really using these people not only as a helot class much like the slaves but to replace unruly conservative working-class whites, proxies and human shields in our civil war.
  • Quotation of the week, from a fellow commenter at Takimag who goes by the handle "Anton Chigurh": "I'm with you with your reactionary ideals but I can't handle that goddamn fedora." You've written my new sig, sir.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

More OicwR deep thoughts

From their doyen:
They [the Catholics and the Orthodox] are not, and never were, analogous to husband and wife, for in that relationship there is a hierarchy that involves a superior and subordinate position. The true relationship is one of sisters, who are related by blood, and whose relationship to each other can never be dissolved or negated. For even if sisters are not on speaking terms, even if, sadly, they come to loathe one another, they cannot cease being sisters. Moreover, sisterhood is a relationship of equals; one is not greater than the other.
Even the branch theory isn't that wussy. Old-school Anglicans believed they were "THE church of the rrrrrrrealm, the same church as in the Middle Ages but purified according to the Bible and the fathers. Papists are a true church with bishops and the creed but in grave error, as are the Greeks, little more than superstitious heathen. Hooray for Cranmer's and Hooker's godly doctrine: God save England and God save the King." Not this two-equal-churches mush. If you believe in Orthodoxy, be Orthodox; right or wrong, you'd have integrity.

The Roman Rite and the Byzantine Rite Orthodox churches are estranged sisters — particular churches. But the Catholic Church has no sisters. The Orthodox believe the same of the Orthodox Church (more of a communion).
John, you're very tiresome of late. You were always tiresome, but now you are especially so.
"Heavy sigh." I know, I know, Stuart. Actually following a church is so boring, so provincial. Leave that to the goyishe kops. The enlightened have left that behind. Stu knows best, always.

"The Western captivity of Orthodoxy"

What do we think of the whole “Western Captivity of Orthodoxy” conceit, which is so protean in its uses?

Anglicans: Dutch touch a no-go

"Succession had been broken by over a century's use of the invalid Edwardine rites." Exactly.

The Dutch touch is wishful thinking for Anglo-Papalists and those who were trying to use Anglicanism's semi-congregationalism as a hedge against Vatican II low-church liturgics and even against Modernism (talk about the frying pan vs. the fire). Trying to defend good things like Anglican parishes' close community too. Because of the touch, they say, you can accept Apostolicae Curae AND be Anglican!

Not so much.

There's only one church in the sense of THE church. The Anglican branch theory is actually based on the idea that Anglican Christianity is the best, the purest "branch" of Catholicism because of Cranmer's and Hooker's godly "Reformation," which was actually worse than the Novus Ordo and something many Anglo-Catholics don't really believe.

The church has never accepted the Dutch touch. Only two conditional ordinations of ex-Anglicans — Fr. John Jay Hughes (converted by the same view of the papacy I believe in — the Pope's office shares in the church's infallibility) and Msgr. Graham Leonard, for personal (Hughes was trying to reconcile with his father, an Episcopal priest) and political/ecumenical reasons respectively. No matter, because conditional ordination does the same thing absolute ordination does.

Because although, as Fr. Hunwicke has pointed out, "intent" is very easy to have (so no to some traddies' arguments against the validity of the Novus Ordo — "plus catholique que l'eglise," spiritual pride), it all depends on the faith and teaching of THE CHURCH, the context of the service being done. Our criteria for valid orders are simple: credal orthodoxy so basic the Nestorians pass, an unbroken claim of tactile succession (which the Anglicans have), and uninterrupted true teaching about the Eucharist (which is where the Anglicans lose and the Orthodox, for example, win). A Eucharist or ordination in an Anglican context means the theology of Cranmer and Hooker, no dice, no matter how many schismatic (Old Catholic) bishops you bring in to lay on hands and pray something (which, I understand, wasn't the Roman Rite ordination prayer anyway).

"The Universal Solvent, Ecumenism." I remember the aftermath of Vatican II, in the '70s, but growing up on the Episcopal side. I misunderstood: I saw us high-churchifying, took it in at face value, and thus thought we were on our way back to mother church. Lots of people then thought everybody would get back together: Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox, any day now. (Some Catholics think the Catholic/Orthodox split is healed because of a purely symbolic "undoing" of 1054 in 1965.) The real agenda was more like an attempted Universal Solvent, Catholic AND Anglican teachings being dissolved into a new church, liberal with a sort of Swedish Lutheran view of apostolic succession (fallible church, with trappings such as succession fun but unnecessary). Impossible for Catholicism so of course it never happened. Catholic churchmen made big mistakes liberalizing but the church in itself is infallible and indefectible, as it reminded the world, to the world's scorn, with Humanae Vitae.

The recent presiding bishop of ELCA, America's mainline liberal Lutheran denomination, Mark Hanson, has Dutch-touch Anglican succession, showing how absurd a purely "lines of succession" view of orders can be, a logical but bastardized conclusion from Western Catholicism's approach to this sacrament, but a valid approach. Thanks to it, we recognize most of the Christian East as an estranged part of us, not an "Other." Yes, lines, but also the context of the church, which is partly why little "independent Catholic" churches (vagantes) aren't taken seriously. The Orthodox lean more towards the context of the church, but when churches break up — the Oriental Orthodox vs. the Chalcedonian Orthodox, the Orthodox communion vs. its Old Calendarist splinter sects and the Kyiv Patriarchate, and Constantinople and Moscow are always on the verge of breaking up in a power struggle, the now-toothless Second Rome vs. the still vital Third with its empire, natural-gas hold on Europe, and nukes, the only Orthodox country that matters geopolitically — which one among them is "the church"?
Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware): It's not enough to have the Orthodox faith; you must be in the Orthodox Church.
Fr. Serge (Keleher), 100% unlatinized and 100% Catholic: Which one?
Metropolitan Kallistos: Shut up! You know too much.

Secession, groupthink, trashy liberal architecture, and the new ruling class

  • Pat Buchanan: What would Braveheart do? The South Tyrol should be in Austria again; it's the southern outpost of German culture, not the northern one of Italian. Transdnistria should be annexed by Russia (at least many of its people have Russian citizenship now, as far as I know ) or at least have its independence recognized; like the Crimea and the far eastern Ukraine it never should have been split off from the motherland. Not sure Scotland could make it on its own; Salmond wanting to keep the pound seems to say it can't. In 1776 I would have been a Loyalist, hands down. Modern Britain's a different story; lived there. British countries including Canada are more liberal and less religious than America, even anti-religious, not the Burkean high-church places some conservatives think they are (and why aren't they?). So American canadophiles, anglophiles, and europhiles tend to be liberals, not romantic monarchists. Importing the Third World's problems is a bad idea.
  • Steve Sailer's insight: Why are the dumber sportswriters so liberal? Other than mainstream society and especially dying newspapers being pulled that way: the reigning ideology is all about equality; but sports are all about inequality: virtuoso players and teams winning the game or the prize. Also why heavy metal's conservative.
  • Peter Eisenman: "Liberal views have never built anything of any value." Doo-wop/googie architecture (space age,'50s, mid-century) was progressive but the old values still ruled, often making it beautiful.
  • James Burnham’s theory of the managerial elite, a “new class” of “managers” that supplemented the capitalist ruling class of the 19th century, still captures the fundamental truth behind the global system of power.

Hollywood doesn't understand science and technology, on the American way of denying death, and more

Monday, September 15, 2014

RIP Bob Crewe, on the sexes, and more


Україна

From "Catholic & Orthodox: Steps Towards a Reunited Church" on Facebook:

Ukrainian Catholic:
Before blaming the western churches and the Catholics for what is happening in Ukraine, I suggest you take a look at your Moscow patriarch. Time and time again, your patriarch and his priests continue to fan the flames of war by supporting terrorism and promoting war from their pulpits. Yes, the ROC has much to loose in Ukraine as sentiment is turning against them and it seems they will need to return the churches they stole from the UOC and the UGCC. It is sad, however, to see Russian "priests" blessing bombs, tanks and machine guns.
It's worth remembering that although almost all of Eastern Europe is naturally nationalistic, so you find both Catholic and Orthodox clergy taking sides in the Ukraine, and although Greek Catholics are in a way the heart of Ukrainianism, the most patriotic Ukrainians, not having a Russian identity (ruled by Poland, sometimes with Austria on top, from the 13th or 14th century through World War II), most of the Ukraine isn't Greek Catholic. It's secular with a big Orthodox minority like Russia. I understand they speak Russian but want to be independent, as Austria speaks German but isn't Germany. That's fine, and not my call anyway. So although the Ukrainian Catholic Church is clearly allied with the new Ukrainian government, Russian xenophobia blaming them for the fighting seems a bit of a stretch.

UC:
John, Ukrainian priests aren't blessing tanks, bombs and machine guns. The Russian orthodox are. Secondly, it's not "the" Ukraine. It's simply Ukraine. Thirdly, many people in the east speak Russian because Ukrainian was forbidden by the Russians during soviet times. People simply weren't allowed to speak Ukrainian and were forced to speak Russian and forced to become Russian orthodox. The Russians along with the roc has always tried to erase the language, culture and identity of Ukraine. A BIG failure.
I wouldn't be surprised if Ukrainian Catholic priests were blessing troops and weapons. The faith isn't nationalism, but patriotism as love of extended family is normal. Sorry, no, I say "the Ukraine." Just like it's Burma, not Myanmar, and Paris, not "Paree." (Beijing is Beijing, though.) Dropping the article makes me feel like I'm faking a Slavic accent. Actually, the Soviets went back and forth about language; when they thought it helped them, they'd promote Ukrainian. The Ukrainian Catholic Church was once the whole Kiev metropolia, which included all of the Ukraine and Byelorussia too. People were forced to become Russian Orthodox as Russia annexed more of the east and central Ukraine and Byelorussia over the centuries, and again after the Soviets stole the remaining Ukrainian Catholic homeland during World War II.

UC:
John: Yes, UGCC and UOC priests bless the troops and pray for their safety. Unlike the ruskies, they do not bless bombs and guns. Big difference! Also, since you say "the" Ukraine, I assume your posts will refer to THE Russia, THE Italy and THE Byelorussia. As far as the language issue...WHEN did the Russians EVER promote the Ukrainian language? It was ALL about forcing Russian on not only Ukraine but everyone around Russia.
"Also, since you say 'the' Ukraine, I assume your posts will refer to THE Russia, THE Italy and tHE Byelorussia ." No, but in English one says "the United States" (because, technically, it should be plural! — "the United States are"), "the Vatican," "the Congo," "the Sudan," and, if you're feeling British, "the Lebanon." No need to be offended. Ray, I've seen Soviet stuff from the '70s, etc. printed in Ukrainian.

By the way, it's heartwarming yet ironic to see OicwRs show some residual loyalty to Catholicism by promoting Ukrainian nationalism vs. Russianism. As a Catholic defending our true-church claim, nothing to do with Russia's national myth, I believe that's short-sighted. I'm looking at the big picture by respecting the Orthodox: bring the Russians back into the family. Of course we will defend our people, but to push their agenda at the Russians' expense is wrong: vindictive.

OicwR: OicwRs?

OicwR: "Orthodox in communion with Rome." Not in the Catholic sense of unlatinized Byzantine Catholics, but Byzantine Catholics who dissent from Catholicism by siding with Orthodox opinion against Catholicism, yet not becoming Orthodox. "We're both the true church." Which disrespects the Orthodox as much as us. Fantasy church in my opinion.

American convertodox who believes in Russianism:
Okay, Ray, I have seen your diatribes against Russia/Putin/Moscow time and again. It makes me wonder if you realize exactly who it is that the pro-Russia forces are actually fighting against in Ukraine. That Kiev government is nothing more than a neo-Nazi military junta which is engaged in "ethnic cleansing" against Russians living in Western Ukraine. If you don't believe me, feel free to look up their leadership (they are called the "Svoboda" party). And for the record, the Orthodox Church has a long history of resisting Nazism — in fact we recently canonized a saint in who was martyred Germany during WW2 for that very reason. So when I hear you condemning the Orthodox Church for opposing Nazism, I take it as a badge of honor. Now do you have a right to support the actions of that Nazi government in Ukraine and cheer them on as they massacre innocent civilians? Of course you do. But make no mistake, that IS what you are doing when you condemn the Orthodox Church for opposing them.

Furthermore, with regard to our Priests doing blessings on military vehicles, are you suggesting that this is somehow inappropriate, or makes hem responsible for every action ever taken by those vehicles? Are the Roman Catholics responsible for the slaves taken by the Spanish and Portuguese ships they blessed before their voyages across the Atlantic? The blessing of ships and other military vehicles is a time honored tradition in both the East and West. And it has never been taken as any sort of "endorsement" of any particular military campaign that those objects would later be used in.

For the record, although the USA and the Western Media try to downplay the Nazism of the Kiev government, they are, in fact, Nazis. Here is one of several articles posted on the subject from right after this military junta took over the country.
Whether that's true or not, it's not my fight, and Kiev has no designs on Moscow's territory. Moscow MIGHT (but I don't think so) on Donetsk and other pro-Russian eastern Ukrainian regions. That said, the Ukrainian revolutionaries didn't like how democracy was working out in Kiev (the duly elected Mr. Yanukovych got a better deal from the Russians than the EU) so they overthrew the authorities; how are the rebels in the Crimea, Donetsk, etc., different other than the Ukrainian nationalists don't like Russia? And the revolutionaries mostly weren't Catholic; their acting president was a Protestant.

Whoo boy. Politically correct — anti-Nazi, pro-Soviet — and Russianist and high-church. Cover all your bases, I guess. No, it doesn't work.

I'd welcome a new Ukraine that's a conservative, authoritarian Slavic state but, unlike Russia, welcoming to Catholics.

A Russian Orthodox woman writes to Catholics

Ekaterina Androvna ("Katy as I am called here") writes to "Catholic & Orthodox: Steps Towards a Reunited Church" on Facebook:
I would like to elicit your comments regarding the religious tensions that have been ongoing in the Ukraine and Russia vis à vis the current geopolitical situation and how this may reflect upon the future of Christianity in the EU and its continuing desire to achieve harmony with Russia and her "Official" Church. Whether acknowledged or not, it is indeed the Holy Russian Orthodox Church of Mother Russia. That which is occurring is a microcosm the free world has been experiencing for some time. Orthodoxy believes she is the saviour of the world. I as a devout believer agree.

What parameters are needed in order to soften the diatribe that has been ongoing? Brothers and sisters, Christianity is suffering a horrible and torturous death in Europe. To clarify, when I refer to Christianity in the previous sentence, it is the Western form — all denominations and professions.

Eastern European nations and Russia recognize this failure as a result of western Christianity's separation from the Orthodox Church by which I refer to as the nascent Church from its conception up until the rupture of communion when Rome removed herself from it. Many here (Russia) would say, "As Rome continued down the path of her degradation due to turning her back on the only Church that existed at the time." These are not my sentiments but those of the millions of Orthodox believers from the Hierarchy, theologians, scholars of the Church all the way down through the fishmongers.

Into this plethora where does the quest for the union of Orthodoxy and Catholicism assimilate itself and offer sustainable, actual and credible facts from past historical relations between the Churches?

These are not easy queries but this Group's reputation precedes itself and others have noticed. Correct me if I am wrong but is it not said in America, "Can you cut the mustard?" You are the 'you.' This is the work that I do on a daily basis. I am coming to you for input as well as your experiences, thoughts, feelings, etc.

This cannot turn into useless argumentation and battles but MUST and ONLY be grounded with both historical fact and truth as well as offering new insights on the past, present and future. Those who do not want to take part, I respect your decision but please do not demean it or chalk it off as rubbish as I am sure some of you after reading this may already be inclined to. If you have nothing positive or constructive to offer than please refrain from posting. Time is of the essence. Our salvation is near at hand.

As a group, are you "up to the challenge," as a dear, dear former professor of mine from Oxford would say as he would end his discourse?
Answer before it's deleted or flamed:

Дорогая Екатерина, здравствуй! Hi, Katy. "Orthodoxy believes she is the saviour of the world." As she should, having a true-church claim just like ours. Theirs doesn't convince me, though, because as great as the Byzantine Rite and Russian culture are, they aren't the whole church and Orthodoxy can't convince me otherwise. I see just one set of beliefs (едина вера) that Catholics and Orthodox share — God, Christ, Trinity, hypostatic union, Mother of God, bishops, the Mass, and the option of images — with many ritual/cultural expressions. Nothing in Catholicism is telling the Russians to give up their rite and culture. The Pope only defends that set of beliefs, as well as our common historic belief against contraception. So I'm a Catholic.

From the same forum:
  • While there are differing degrees of orthodoxy within the Eastern Orthodox Church, Eastern Orthodox Christians commonly believe that salvation is achieved through living holy, Christ-like lives, known as deification or theosis. There are no traditional Western notions of Heaven and Hell in Eastern Orthodoxy, but rather the idea that both Heaven and Hell are the experience of being in God’s eternal presence. For one who loves God, God’s eternal presence is a Heaven; for one who does not love God, God’s eternal presence is a Hell. Sure; not all Catholics or Orthodox are orthodox. The church is a big tent of sinners, not a cult. This view of the afterlife is one Eastern saint's opinion, one who wasn't Chalcedonian Orthodox, St. Isaac the Syrian, and all of this is Catholic. The church has different schools of thought and spirituality below the level of doctrine.
  • Ukrainian Catholic altar girls. Shaking my head. Never seen it but knew there was trouble 25 years ago; when I heard a Ukrainian Catholic priest giving a talk apologize for "sexist language" in a quote you could have picked up my jaw from the floor.
    I'm going to broach a difficult topic so I ask for your patience and charity. I was surprised to see that some Eastern Catholic Churches allow women acolytes, lectors, and subdeacons. Does this speak to the once present "identity crisis" experienced by many Eastern Churches in communion with Rome, or does this stem rather from an ancient understanding of these ministries and roles? Does the Orthodox Church ever allow women lectors/acolytes/subdeacons? This is a very touchy issues with Roman Catholics since many see altar service as a means for exposing young men to consider the priesthood. Even the "instituted ministries" of lector and acolyte are reserved for men. Most parishes, however, utilize "Extraordinary Ministers" which is open to women. Thoughts? Ideas? Citations from our tradition?
    It's obviously corruption from the Novus Ordo, although some intelligentsia Orthodox in the West make feminist noises including about women deacons. Altar boys East and West are substitutes for minor clerics (which the Orthodox are better about still having, but they use altar boys too): JROTC for the priesthood; "Knights of the Altar."
    Our UGCC parish in DC (Holy Family Shrine) routinely has female altar servers. Had been this way for at least 4 years. "Stephen, did some of the older Ukes have issues with this? Change, after all, is next to impossible in our church." Ray, I assume that some of the older parishioners had issues, but they got over it. When I joined the parish it was a done deal. Considering the alternative of none, creating the awkwardness of some elder shuffling to the front of the church to open the side doors, and carry the lectern, I guess they got used to it.

A nay to Scottish independence, on Enoch Powell, and more



Sunday, September 14, 2014

Mass, flea market, and Philadelphia Doo Wop Festival


Our relic of the true cross and the Lady altar decorated with the statue of Our Lady of Ransom, whose feast day is Sept. 24.


Luna the Papillon: "I'm ready for my close-up, Mr. DeMille."

The Philadelphia Doo Wop Festival, at a Fraternal Order of Police lodge in Philly's Far Northeast, benefiting their Survivor Fund. Cover/tribute groups, some with original members of Philly-area groups. Street-corner harmonies were r&b mixed with the instrumental harmonies you hear on Glenn Miller records.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the large audience were on "Bandstand."


Yelp now has court permission to change business ratings for money. Don't forget it.

The Internet's all in a tizzy the past few days thanks to a Wednesday [Sept. 3] ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which said that review site Yelp could manipulate its ratings for money.

So, say a small diner makes a big ad buy on the site; those extra dollars could maybe boost the diner's rating, thus potentially gaining it more customers. (This could be one way to explain the enduring popularity of the solidly mediocre Codmother Fish and Chips on Yelp's Top 100 list for San Francisco, but of course it's probably just that legions of Fisherman's Wharf tourists love the place.)

Yelp still swears up and down that it totally doesn't manipulate ratings, despite longtime accusations from business owners; it uses an automated process to surface restaurants and star ratings on the site yadda yadda yadda. And there is no hard evidence that it does engage in such behavior, either — all the court ruling said was say that such behavior wouldn't be illegal if the review site decided to try it.

The ruling obviously sucks for small business owners as the company could essentially extort them out of their money for better reviews (though the court noted that this practice was just "at most, hard bargaining," which I guess it is, in the cold-hearted logic of capitalism).

But it is a reminder that Yelp is a massive, publicly traded corporation whose goal is to make money. Yelp is not a public service, as much as we treat it as such sometimes. It is not just like getting a recommendation from a friend, as much as it positions itself that way. We have no rational reason to believe that the company will be 100 percent fair about business ratings and placement just because it seems like the right thing to do.

Take your Yelp reviews with a grain of salt from now on, as you should have been doing all along.
Reminds me of the suburban newspaper business, where the Reader's Choice awards were fake.

My Yelp reviews.

Diversity quotas (affirmative action) and the U.S. military



This reporting could be conservative clickbait/culture-wars shark chum from the establishment right such as The Washington Times, but this kind of thinking is a problem.

The Cathedral's narrative seems to say 50/50 racial quotas will make better fighting forces (well, because, OK?) and I guess the military's main mission is to make minorities feel good.

The confusion here partly comes from conservative values and martial virtues working well together, so since the Sixties, conservative American Christians have thought of our troops as Christian knights, but also that, because of course it's part of the U.S. government, the U.S. military is not conservative. Rewatch "Dragnet: 1967," etc., some time too. That's not really conservative either. It's about enforcing the law, whatever that law happens to be, left or right.

Someone else's commentary:
So way back when … like in George Washington’s day … an officer was a gentleman. “Gentleman” being the generic title of an aristocrat while “mister” was the entry-level rank of the aristocracy. (Now you know why naval officers are called “mister”.) Officers led “the men” who were commoners in need of leadership. This is the essence of republicanism.

Naturally, the aristocracy was an institution of blood lines. The upper class was the upper class because they weren’t the lesser classes and some one or more of their ancestors distinguished themselves as superior leaders, somehow somewhere. Over the generations, subtle and difficult lessons-learned could be passed down father to son. As was the case with all skilled trades, leadership required generations of patient practice to perfect.

But with the Democratic and Populist movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, “to the manor born” became unacceptable. So “meritocracy” was invented so that promising men might immediately advance to a sort of
aristos nouveau. Technical talent was enough – the patience and wisdom and subtlety of the ancient regime was dispensed with in the interest of efficiency. The commoners would lead themselves. Very democratic!

Ooops.

You see, once clever is considered a fit substitute for wise, there is nothing to stop clever’s replacement by something less – say pandering and tokenism for the sake of appearance. This is simply daft and represents a vicious cycle not a virtuous one.

My prediction: the Potemkin Village Army is not long for this world. It will be replaced by an army raised by a bona fide first generation aristocrat who earns his noble chops indisputably. The cycle will begin again and it will be a long time before anyone we know sees politically correct insanity again.
Naval officer Jim Lovell, as depicted by Tom Hanks, was a gentleman, unflappable in a very Anglo-American way: "Houston, we have a problem."

The answer here is I don't care what color you are; can you fight and lead men?

P.S. Commercial website designers: want to make sure I never buy your sponsor's product? Use popups and have videos with sound that automatically play when I visit your page.

The true cross: "If all the pieces that could be found were collected together..."


Fr. Christopher Phillips writes:

The authenticity of relics of the true cross
It is usual at this time of the year, when relics of the True Cross are venerated, that you will hear scoffing about the authenticity of such relics, often echoing the statement by the Protestant John Calvin that "if all the pieces that could be found were collected together, they would make a big ship-load."

In 1870 an actual study was carried out, making a catalogue of all known relics of the True Cross. It demonstrated that if the fragments of the Cross were brought together again, all of them together would not reach one-third the size of a cross sufficient to have been used to crucify our Lord.

Are there false relics around? Without a doubt. However, an authentic relic will have with it a certification, properly sealed, attesting to its authenticity.
"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."

Mass: Nos autem gloriari oportet in cruce Domini nostri Jesu Christi.

Cars, vintage shops, and church in Mullica Hill


A rainstorm hit this show in the lot of the Old Mill antiques mall but we got there in time to see it.


DJ playing Bill Haley and the Comets.


A rarity: a Ford from the suspended '42 model year, made right before Pearl Harbor.


'48 Pontiac Streamliner 8.


The star: '59 Impala.


The Old Mill.


Turner's, now moved across Main Street.

Yuengling's a great beer, by the way, from Pottsville, Pa., near here.


Taxidermy: raccoons carry rabies and aren't afraid of us.

I wouldn't want to run across this fellow going through my garbage.


This is from Dickens and Prince Albert's Germany, nothing directly to do with the birth of Christ.

Very nice though.


As the rain began, we found St. Stephen's Episcopal Church open to visitors.


Gong sanctus bell and Stations of the Cross.


A small, charming old church, a close community, and high culture.

I'm not Novus Ordo, because this kind of church is where I came from. Thanks.

Saturday, September 13, 2014

The Facebook slugfest with convertodox and OicwRs


Some Orthodox converts are nice of course. Jumped into the Facebook chatter again when probably a sincere Catholic inquirer asked about the OicwR status symbol of venerating Fr. Alexis Toth, who left the church because of real mistreatment and whom the OCA canonized.
Opener: On what basis is Alexis Toth considered a saint in Orthodoxy? He and his fellow Eastern Catholics were put in a bad spot for sure, but is his canonization based on his (coerced?) return to Orthodoxy and subsequent preaching to other ECs? What traits did he have that make him worthy of imitation?

OicwR 1: He stood up for our tradition and our faith. He is wildly popular among Ruthenian Catholics, especially in Minneapolis, as well.

Another Catholic: Can Eastern Catholics in good conscience venerate him, also?

Moderator: There is nothing to stop anyone from venerating any reposed pious person.
That's true.
Another inquirer: Why would Eastern Catholics venerate a saint who *left* the Catholic Church? Is he [Alexis] a saint simply because he led thousands of Eastern Catholics away from Rome?
Nice Orthodox convert: A man (who shall remain nameless) went nuts on me on another forum because I have an icon of St. Maximillian Kolbe, a Catholic priest who died in Auschwitz.
Privately you may venerate anyone. Just like we give born Orthodox the benefit of the doubt, giving us that is an option for Orthodox; privately you may venerate St. Maximilian, says your church. Rite controls what you do in church; devotion is free.
"For example, why would Eastern Catholics venerate a saint who *left* the Catholic Church?"
They shouldn't! And the Slavic ones I've known didn't.
"Is he [Alexis] a saint simply because he led thousands of Eastern Catholics away from Rome?"
Pretty much. As far as I know, there was no popular cultus of Fr. Toth among the Ruthenian-American descendants of ex-Catholics who make up most of the OCA; he's not a miracle worker or the equivalent of Padre Pio, for example. The canonization seems a political move: anti-Catholic, pure and simple. Which doesn't excuse Archbishop Ireland causing the schism by mistreating Fr. Toth, nor does it mean that after Fr. Toth died he was condemned by God, but yes.

There's "defending our traditions," which Catholics who choose the unlatinized option do without schism, and then there's confusing the traditions with the whole church. Canonizing Fr. Toth, in my view, does the latter. A bit of ethnocentrism that wears thin after about three generations in America. The Slavic kids move away or marry out; Orthodoxy's Baba's church.
Nice Orthodox convert: So a question for you, John Beeler: how do you think reunification will happen? Because I peeked at your wall and you made a comment to the effect that Greeks and Russians are essentially Catholic and will "come back into the fold"...were you being serious???
Absolutely serious, Suzanne. Because we believe you and we share the essentials: God, Christ, Trinity, hypostatic union, Mother of God, bishops, the Mass, and the option of images. How would union happen? As we see it, all you'd have to do is agree with us that the Pope's office, not the man, shares in the church's charism of infallibility. That's the only real difference.
Suzanne the nice Orthodox convert: I think this belief shows a lack of understanding of early church history, say from 100AD to 1054AD. The history of Christianity is one of multiple Patriarchs. So to assume that ANY of the Orthodox churches are going to just up and stop that to become Roman Catholic is unrealistic. I am still thinking that Pope JP 2 has it most clearly in view when he says the phrase about 2 lungs in one body of the church. Each lung is still its own organ, but the hope is they work together.

We SHOULD attempt to take John seriously, and to try to see if he is just not aware if the history of both churches (which stood
SIDE BY SIDE BY SIDE AS EQUALS for close to 1,000 years). Not every Roman Catholic is a bigot. Some are unaware. Not every Eastern Orthodox is an asshole, some of us want to love and grow closer to our RC brethren. So on that note I will sign off for the night and go say my prayers with my RC hubby....who would be fabulous even if he were a Protestant....lol
Ex-Catholic Orthodox who goes to a high-Anglican church Sunday morning because he likes it better and believes in only four ecumenical councils: Yes, John hits the truth. Bow down and worship the bishop of Rome and his office, that is all Rome asks.
Stuart Koehl, the doyen of OicwRs: I'm not particularly fond of the recent trend of awarding sainthood to the Bishop of Rome in the same manner that the U.S. military gave out air medals in the Vietnam War. "He was Pope, so of course he must be a saint"--which just about sums up everything I find objectionable in Catholic ecclesiology.

John is always converting FROM something. It impels him to denigrate the confessions from which he has fled to justify his new allegiance. It's rather sad, really.
Deflect and distract: he's conflating the trend of canonizing recent Popes, which I object to, with our teaching about the papacy; strawman.

Whether the quote in bold fits his characterization I'll leave up to you.

It's an old tactic. An OicwR old lady on Facebook 'doxing with her fingers crossed tried it.

A good friend, a Ukrainian Catholic by choice who as far as I know is not particularly latinized and is 100% Catholic theologically:
Nearly a decade ago I interacted online with another one of this ilk, an Evangelical Protestant who became a Roman Catholic in the '80s and went on to do a graduate Theology degree at [a theologically conservative Catholic college], and then discovered Byzantine Catholicism around 2004. He was as intellectually "insistent" (for lack of a better word) as Stuart in his views, but, unlike Stuart [not anymore], of a strongly passive-aggressive bent — e.g., when pushed to defend his views he would end up with "clearly you have 'spiritual issues' to deal with, and so I refuse to discuss this topic with you. I hope you find the help you need" (or words to that effect).
That's the game: defend the magisterium and you're Archbishop Ireland and/or pathological.

Of course everything on the Internet is true (#bonjour). Inquirers about Greek Catholicism would be better off with word of mouth from a good Catholic on which resources to go to.

Friday, September 12, 2014

The different Americas: Long-lasting ethnic cultures




Us, the Baptists, the Mormons, our cousins the Lutherans, and the Methodists.

We rank because we're bigger than any one Protestant sect in most of the North.
The United States are not a real country, but there are several real countries within the United States. Checking a couple of maps of ethnicity and religion in the USA can pretty quickly give one a good feel for where the boundaries lie.
"The Orthodox lose people after the third generation in the new country because nation worship obviously has less appeal to them."
Well, John, Catholics have also not been all that great at keeping their children in the fold, or perhaps grandchildren.
True. But we've had more staying power. The Byzantine Catholics here lose people for the same reason as the Orthodox (when they're not Ukrainian anymore) plus "Catholic is Catholic" backfires on them: people go Novus Ordo when they move away or marry out.
You mean third-generation American Greek Orthodox don't rally 'round the banner of Hellas?

Even the second generation seems to lose some interest, if *My Big Fat Greek Wedding* is any indication. (Of course, giving your kids a house when they get married might tend to keep them in the fold. ;))
There's a history of long-lasting ethnic cultures in America. Not just self-segregating groups like the German-speaking Amish either. Until stupid anti-German propaganda from World Wars I and II, there were many German speakers in Pennsylvania and Texas. (Admiral Nimitz, from Texas, was third-generation and a first-language German speaker.) The oldest German-speaking Texas Germans grew up in the '50s. (Texas German's a dialect with some English in it.) Cajuns spoke French, as did some part-French Louisiana blacks such as Fats Domino (that's a French accent you hear in his songs). Even New York state's old families spoke Dutch until around the '20s. Around here, DJ Jerry Blavat, half-Italian, speaks South Philly Italian, a southern Italian mash-up (Neapolitan, Calabrian, Sicilian) with an American accent. So the Greeks and Slavs have a fighting chance. It just isn't happening.

Article on Texas German, in German:
Das texanische Deutsch ist reich an solchen sonderbaren Sätzen wie "Die Kuh ist über die Fence gejumpt!" oder "Wasever, ich muss die Pick-up da erst mal greasen und das Oil changen".
A few American English words got in over the past 150 years.

Scotland can't keep the pound, American identity, and business and race

  • The Bank of England on Scottish independence: Currency union is incompatible with sovereignty. The UK to its credit didn't dump the pound for the euro. Salmond here reminds me of that teenager in Catholic school who moved out of the house to be with her boyfriend, then sued her parents for tuition money; she was 18, her choice, but her parents owed her nothing. Question you probably shouldn't ask at the pub: is seeming British independence from Europe really thanks to the great reversal in the Special Relationship; thanks to the U.S.?
  • Rewatching Tucker: The Man and His Dream. Love it. Great moviemaking. Largely true. He was a hero and it is a beautiful car. Got me thinking and Googling: What was the first postwar design in American cars? Most of Detroit retooled for the 1949 model year (the '41 models, beautiful designs, were reused most of the decade because of suspending civilian car production during the war); the '48 Tucker was one of the first real new ones (but not a break with '40s style, a beauty as well as technically advanced) but I understand the prize goes to Studebaker for the 1947 model year.
  • Donald Sterling's revenge. Another NBA team owner in trouble, this time for ... running a business, noticing that white customers on average have more spendable income to waste on f&b and merch, and so trying to attract more of them. Not chase away blacks (what sane business owner chases away customers?); draw more of the better-paying customers. Noticing things can cost you your livelihood in the new America. My guess is like with Sterling, Levenson crying anti-Semitism wouldn't help, in the Cathedral's hierarchy of truths.
  • "America isn't a real country." It doesn't matter what color you are as long as you behave, but "behave" is part of identitarians' point. It's part of our British roots. Of course making an idol of your race is wrong, but if blacks are allowed to be proud of being black, why can't Anglo-Americans, as part of one of history's greatest civilizations? Worrying that it makes other peoples feel bad is distorted Christian charity, part of the Christian heresy that is secular humanism; showy fake humility. It's really the elite warring against conservative whites.

OicwRs aren't really Catholic and ecumenists not really Orthodox


  • I like Yiayia. "Why you no have job? YOU the wife!" Like Archie Bunker she was meant as a mockery but she tells the truth. The Greeks and Russians are at heart still Catholic; in God's time they'll come back into the family.
  • The East taking credit or blame for Western liturgical change after Vatican II. An example of intelligentsia such as Fr. Robert (Taft) looking down on trads, which they do, or was the East just an innocent bystander the liberals abused to give cred to their program?
  • Inside the mind of an OicwR.
    So I have been curious about this for awhile now. I have heard that some eastern rite Catholics sometimes call themselves "Orthodox in communion with Rome." Furthermore I was talking to some of my peers at a core team meeting for me church, and one of the priests there told me that from one perspective, Byzantine Catholics are Roman Catholics. I bit my lip because I did not want to start a debate on the issue. He stated that because it is in communion with Rome, it was essentially Roman regardless of the separation in canon law. So my question is what is your reaction when hearing such statements or titles as I said above? As always I ask out of the pursuit of knowledge and do not mean to offend.
    I'm not saying the questioner was throwing a bomb, probably an honest average Catholic wanting to be better informed, but this is an "eternal flame" topic in the Internet sense, not the memorial one. There is a true Catholic sense of "Orthodox in communion with Rome": Byzantine theology and the unlatinized form of the Byzantine Rite. Mother church also offers the latinized form of the rite that born Eastern Catholics adopted centuries ago. Then there's the bad sense of it, dissenters within Catholicism who side with Orthodox opinion against church teachings (quote: "Byzantine theology = Orthodox teaching") yet don't convert. This actually disrespects the Orthodox as well as us, as Orthodox Fr. John Morris points out; it's offensive. Byzantine Catholics should not be afraid of the word "Orthodox," big O and all, because it is their heritage. But Fr. John's point stands.

    Churches, more than rites, in communion with the Pope as supreme pontiff (sharing in the church's charism of infallibility) but not second-class to the Roman Rite is 100% correct: educated Catholicspeak. "Under Rome," "Eastern Rite Roman Catholic," and "we're also Roman Catholic" (as the first Eastern Christians I knew well, Ukrainian exiles from World War II, put it to me) are rank-and-file Catholicspeak. OicwRs, mostly online critters, look down on rank-and-file Catholics so there you go.

    OicwRism:
    We believe all that the Orthodox Church teaches, even if that offends our resident Orthodox priest.
    Joining a church you really believe in and obeying it, including the Orthodox one, is so provincial, for mere mundanes (muggles). It's more fun to be a gnostic Internet brotherhood, like freemasonry in Byzantine drag. And he wonders why real Orthodox are offended, or maybe that's part of the fun.
    And we ask for the same respect he gives to the Syriac Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, and Armenian Orthodox, with whom he does not even share a common Christology, but whom he takes no offense to.
    Good point, OicwR. The bromance between the Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox is historically baffling as 1) the OOs have claimed to be the true church and can use the same arguments against the Orthodox as the Orthodox use against us and 2) the Orthodox have persecuted them. But it makes sense since they're both Eastern; church polity is identical. (Not under Rome: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.)

    By the way, in real life I've never seen unlatinized Byzantine Catholics try to pass themselves off as Orthodox to Orthodox. Because as lovers of the East, they're on board with our policy of trying to bring all the Orthodox back, rite and spirituality intact, not soliciting individuals, and besides, of course lying wouldn't help our cause.

    Most Byzantine Catholics are Ukrainian Catholics, and while the liturgy doesn't shy away from the term "Orthodox Christians" in the Great Entrance, the ones I've known in person would tell you loudly they're not Orthodox. Because "Orthodox" means "Russian" to them.
    Most Orthodox (including priests) irl call me or my family "Orthodox" in passing anyway. No need to "pass myself off" as anything. Regardless, it is our self-identity, and we don't need Fr. John's approval. It's not about him, or anyone else outside our communion.
    Wishful thinking; reminds me of transgender folk. Never mind facts.

    Not the OicwR but a young Catholic of Ukrainian descent:
    I'm even a member of my university's OCF chapter, and my godfather belongs to the ACROD.
    That's great! Cooperation and close ties between the two sides, when that happens. If your Greek Catholic parish doesn't have Saturday Vespers, go to the corresponding Orthodox church in your area, etc.

    OicwR:
    The rest of us have been studying things a bit longer, and know that there are no doctrinal differences whatsoever. The papacy is the only issue which remains a true stumbling block that needs working through. It is not an issue for me since collegiality renders it irrelevant, and "infallibility" is a non-issue unless we are engaging in a minimalistic distinction between "necessary" and "non-infallible" teachings.
    What we've got here is a distortion of Catholicism, not really Orthodoxy. Like us, the OicwR believes sacramentally we're the same church (why in Syria, Byzantine Christian laity are one church, intermarried and intercommuning) and that the only difference (him: if any) between the sides is the scope of the Pope. The truth: everything in church polity except the matters that are also doctrine — the papacy and the episcopate — is negotiable, the basis for true Catholic/Orthodox dialogue, desirable because they're an estranged part of the family and we should relearn how to be an unmodernized loose communion run by custom. (Grassroots traditionalism: close ethnic communities as a hedge against Modernism.) The OicwR errs by trying to negotiate away the papacy as the church knows it. Just. Like. Catholic. Liberals. No, thank you.

    "Ecumenist" Orthodox in these discussions buy into libcaths' misreading of Vatican II ("the church no longer teaches it's the only true one"), "including" Catholicism in their ecclesiology but not on Catholicism's terms. They SEEM nice to us but aren't doing us any favor. Two groups of liberals creating a new fantasy church neither Catholic nor Orthodox. So these distortions of Catholicism and Orthodoxy chattering online are, I dare say, counterproductive; misrepresenting both churches won't bring the Orthodox back.