Tuesday, October 07, 2014

The Catholic Defcons, American castes, and who's an Anglican?

  • Our Lady of Victory, commonly called Our Lady of the Rosary.
  • My Catholic Defcons: Defcon 5: Pius XII's Vatican; Cardinal Spellman's New York. Defcon 4: traditionalist recovery. Defcon 3: the local church (parishes, diocese, country) is inhospitable but not formally heretical. (Navy lingo: "Sound general quarters.") Defcon 2: the local church is heretical; run to the SSPX. Defcon 1: go underground. All practically speaking. If the See of Peter becomes vacant under Francis it would be Defcon 1 theologically, because in Catholic countries it would have been practically that too.
  • From Bob Wallace: Castes of the United States. Paul Fussell, India, and a more elaborate manosphere scale. Even though there's no such thing as alpha dogs, just fathers (patriarchy is natural), still a map, useful. Roissy's right that alphatude's more about power than looks, the opposite of women's attractiveness.
  • SNL: "Whites." Basically true. The elite acknowledges Steve Sailer's POV exists: making fun of it or "just kidding, not really"?
  • Ebola as seen through Ebonics.
  • After years of hearing how different Mario Puzo's novel is from the movies I'm reading The Godfather.
  • Not important but who or what defines the Anglican Communion since the Lambeth Conference is canceled? The thing is, as reading Episcopal bishop turned Catholic layman Frederick Joseph Kinsman's chapter on Anglicanism in Reveries of a Hermit has reminded me, its formularies have always been deliberately ambiguous (paving the way for "Enlightenment" and modern agnosticism, modern America: tolerance is the supreme virtue, or there is no church -> there is no real God) so "confessional" has never really fit. But the classic Anglicans, the old high churchmen, agreed with these Australian Evangelicals about "the symbolical books." Anyway, good question since Lambeth is relatively recent and didn't define the Communion in the beginning. Seems to be whoever the Church of England ("Canterbury") says is in. Historically, as long as you're not under the Pope, deny the full Catholic teaching about the Eucharist (Article XXVIII and the Test Act), and outwardly conform (do what the king says and use the Prayer Book: "no window into people's souls" = we don't care about what you think or about the truth, just obey -> this God stuff's all bosh anyway). Modern Anglicans have more leeway on the last two, an effect of Anglo-Catholicism but classic A-Cism failed. Episcopalians now market themselves as Catholics with a difference: beautiful traditional services AND open-minded, etc. (Hoping to skim divorced-and-remarried and gay Catholic liberals and Hispanics. Actually they don't much compete with us; their rivals are their fellow English Protestants, Calvinists who lost their sh*t at the "Enlightenment" like they did: the United Church of Christ and the Unitarians.) Because the Episcopal Church is not the state church, evangelicals could always go somewhere else, so no strong Evangelical Episcopal party. So it's easy for Americans to forget how hardcore Protestant other Anglicans sometimes are, such as English and Aussie Evos. (Most lay Episcopalians say they're Protestant; most Episcopal priests now don't: liberal high church, or to them, "Protestant" means evangelical, as "Christian" now does to most Americans.) Kinsman wrote in the '30s that ultimately the liberals made the most sense in Anglican terms, but "a church about nothing" has no appeal or staying power so Episcopalians are regrouping in their version of back to basics (think Rowan Williams, not John Spong or even Katharine Jefferts Schori). Some accuse us of that nomimalism, which is now understandable: "Look at the libcaths. All that matters to you is if you're under Rome." (Say some Orthodox, whose churches have been just as Erastian and, following the Anglicans' lead, have sold out on contraception.) Not true, of course, as Catholic teaching is crystal clear; the church is huge so many don't follow the teaching.


  1. Just a small quibble, John. From my own reading, I gather that Our Lady of Victories refers to the victories given by Our Lady to the French Catholic forces at New Rochelle, and the birth of the Dauphin, under Louis XIII, thus the founding of the great basilica in Paris, Notre Dame des Victoires, which was the powerhouse of much of XIX Century Paris Catholic life. See

    The title of today's feast was originally Our Lady of Victory.

    Or so I read.

    All the best.

    1. Should be la Rochelle, I think.

    2. Thanks. The feast of Our Lady of Victories (the French one) is Oct. 26.

  2. I thought that the original "Our Lady of Victory" was in honor of Lepanto (October 7, 1571).

    1. It was. A couple of years later, because of the rosary's role in winning the battle, the Pope renamed the feast in its honor.


Leave comment