Wednesday, June 18, 2014

The sexual counter-revolution, and more



6 comments:

  1. For starters, he's not Orthodox.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He seems like the liberal Orthodox academic elite such as the Parisian and St. Vladimir's Seminary school of Russian Orthodoxy, a form of anti-Westernism that looks down on scholasticism and Trent, for example. There are Eastern schools of theological thought, including more than one Byzantine one, and they are in themselves good, but this, like schism, takes it too far. Not an ethnic snob like old-fashioned Orthodox nationalism but an intellectual one. The kind who wants to keep being invited to sit with the cool kids in academia so he doesn't want a bunch of embarrassing conservative Roman Riters taking refuge in Byzantine Catholic parishes. Like he wants in on Westernized Buddhism's exotic, Orientalist appeal to the Western elite today; harmless to the status quo (it's little and cute, except when Russia does it) and marketed as more mystalicious (as I think Modestinus once put it) than boring old Latin Catholicism. (American convertodoxy/hipsterdoxy: that plus reheated Protestant anti-popery.) I would have no problem with the unlikely outcome of the main expression of Catholicism becoming Byzantine as long as it remains Catholic. Some born Roman Riters are called to be Eastern; Andrew (Sheptytsky) should be their patron saint. Taft just seems like a jerk.

      Delete
    2. He also reminds me of the online "Orthodox in communion with Rome," a kind of intellectual pride that thinks they're better than either church.

      Delete
    3. Like he wants in on Westernized Buddhism's exotic, Orientalist appeal to the Western elite today; harmless to the status quo (it's little and cute, except when Russia does it) and marketed as more mystalicious (as I think Modestinus once put it) than boring old Latin Catholicism.

      Well said.

      By the way what happened to Modestinus?

      Delete

Leave comment