Category: Authority

CDXLVIII – Liturgy Wars (2)

Commenter Anon33 discusses my recent article on the Liturgy Wars. In it, he says the following:

Fr. Z has a great metaphor for the two masses. Paraphrasing, the Novus Ordo is bread. Is it a food? Yes. Can you eat it? Yes. Does it sustain you? Sure.

On the other hand, the TLM is a royal feast of rib roast, mashed potatoes with gravy, grilled asparagus, glass of Chianti, and a creme brulee to top it off. Is it food? The best! Can you eat it? How can you not! Does it sustain you? Of course!

Now imagine the Pope comes along and says, “Catholics are only allowed to eat bread.” If you’ve eaten bread your entire life, you shrug and move on with your life. However, if you’ve been nourished by roasts & such, you would be up in arms, too.

That’s what’s going on here.

As to the laity’s involvement, we do have strength in numbers, see evidence.

The following was my response (lightly edited to include back-links), which was long enough to be its own post so I am posting it here:

You highlight some really important things, and some really difficult things. Again, my hobbyhorse has been obedience and I think I take a somewhat radical view on the subject. I know this is perhaps a Scoot-specific idiosyncrasy, but it is illustrative of Whats Up With The World (TM).

Here is the important thing: The Mass Feeds. When you boil it down, that is the most important part of Mass. Liturgy of the Word, Liturgy of the Eucharist. In an absolute pinch, Priests don’t even need an ornate Church–they have travel kits. My priest before I moved offered a Mass on a hike with the young adults of the parish. We are fed. The Desert Fathers had traveling priests visit their hermitages and offer Mass for them as well.

Here is the difficult thing: Christ frequently and repeatedly refers to us as Sheep–and not in any degrading or diminutive sense, but in the sense that we rely entirely on Christ for the provision of our needs. By entirely I don’t mean “mostly”, I mean every moment of every day, every atom in our bodies, every (good) desire in our hearts comes from God. This dependence is extremely hard to grasp. And when we are confronted with it, it is extremely difficult to be grateful.

A scriptural case study: after Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt, they were sustained on Manna from Heaven. Manna was not a rich feast but it kept them going. In the desert, this was a sign that God loved them and wanted to nourish them. God could equally have sent a rib-roast banquet every morning with the dewfall, but these meager rations reminded the Hebrews who it was who delivered them and the hunger in their bellies should have reminded them what is important: that the Lord provides. We know from recent Sunday readings that they grumbled and wanted new signs and proofs that God had not abandoned them. We know that a journey that was supposed to take only 40 days ended up taking 40 years while God had to repeatedly, carefully, and lovingly teach the Hebrews that His love was unfailing.

You may have pulled out the parallel I am making now, but let me make it explicit. We are sheep that have been fed a rich, beautiful feast–like the prodigal sons brother who stayed loyally by his fathers side, and enjoyed all of the fruits of that loyalty and none of the hardships that the prodigal son endured. If our shepherd takes away some of the blessings of this feast, and we must persist on meager rations, should that not give us clarity in our minds what about the Mass is important? Should that not teach us that–hey, we can (and already know how to) offer a much more fulfilling feast than this?

You are absolutely right, that having been fed by such a feast as you describe, only to have it replaced with meager bread and water rations, you would naturally be up in arms. But what if the Holy Spirit is trying to teach us–all of us, not just those who worship at a TLM specifically–a lesson? What if the Holy Spirit is trying to get us to answer the question “What is it about the Mass that is important?”

Your video is one Hambone and I have spent a lot of time chewing over. In the one sense, yes strength in numbers–but the Church is not democratic. Christ is our King, and the Pope is the “Vicar of Christ”–Vicar shares a root with “Viceroy” and means “second in command” or “deputy”–The Pope is the steward, the King while the King is away. The subjects to the King will always have strength in numbers, but a numerical majority does not make one right. If the Pope hands down an order–any order–that is at best morally good or at worst not evil, and it is a lawful order for the Pope to give, we have a duty to obey. We ought to give wide latitude to what constitutes a lawful order, especially from the Pope.

I don’t vote, because I don’t believe in democracy (another hobbyhorse of this blog). If my bishop said unequivocally “All Catholics in the diocese must vote” then I would vote–I owe the bishop my obedience, he is the deputy to the Pope after all and the duty of obedience flows down from God.

All this to say that–the laity ought to take their cues from the priests and the other Church leaders. Barring the doors to a Church is bad. Did the bishop order it, or the government? If the bishop, shouldn’t the priests have obeyed? If the priests obeyed but winked and nodded to the laity, is that really obedience?

There is nothing–literally nothing–more countercultural in this day and age than forthright and clear-eyed obedience. The liturgy wars are, in my opinion, born out of the democratization of the laity–we think the Pope must listen to us and that just isn’t the case. He should! I hope he does! But his obligation extends to feeding his flock. The Pope was chosen by the Holy Spirit. So the Holy Spirit must, in some way, will for us to nourish ourselves on bread for the time being.

AMDG

CDXLVII – Liturgy Wars?

Dipping into the substack well of fodder again, someone recently posted a lengthy meta-critique of the Liturgy Wars. Overall, it represented a call for civility. I commented on the article something to the extent that we ought not be having liturgy wars at all, and that we owe a duty of obedience to the Church, a fact which has become something of a hobbyhorse of mine.

The commenter replied to me suggesting there are three ancillary questions to the liturgy wars which are pertinent:

There should be no need for discussion as to the validity of either form of the mass in the Roman Rite. But, there are many other related discussions that do need to occur. Among these: 1.) The nature of Sacred Tradition, 2.) The value of aesthetics within the liturgy, 3.) The exact nature of Papal Authority as regards the liturgy, etc

Here, I will attempt to address the ancillary questions–but out of sequence because I do what I want.

3. What is the exact nature of Papal Authority as regards the liturgy?

The Pope is the highest possible authority on Earth. His is the last word on final say, when he invokes papal infallibility. On all other matters, insofar as they are not contradictory to the Dogmatic teachings of the Church–that is to say, insofar as they are true–we owe a duty of obedience. Catholic liturgy is well within the scope of Papal Authority, so in my view the Pope has the authority to modify the liturgy and provide guidance as to its conduct. He has some limitations imposed upon him by past councils and doctrine. The Pope cannot abrogate completely the Latin Mass, for example, nor can he change the Mass to something irreverent or heretical.

Let’s consider a negative example, though. Suppose the Pope did not have the authority to amend the liturgy. What is the extent of this? There are A LOT more liturgies than just the Latin and Novus Ordo. There’s the Maronite rite–an Eastern-style liturgy in communion with Rome. There’s the Ge’ez rite of Ethiopia. The Anglican Ordinariate. What shall we do with these liturgies? If you moved to Ethiopia, would you insist upon the Latin Mass among all the Ethiopians? If so–why is this different?

The core fulcrum of this whole discussion is what’s up with Traditionis Custodes which specifically plays the Latin against the Novus Ordo. While this is rude and offensive to fans of the Latin, insofar as Papal Authority is concerned it is not out of his scope. There are plenty of other liturgies in other languages that are unaffected. Would it be better to have some consistency from the top about the liturgy? Yes. Was Traditionis Custodes a poorly executed maneuver? Yes. Was it morally or doctrinally wrong? No. Not obviously, anyway.

1. What is the nature of Sacred Tradition as regards the Liturgy?

Let’s side-step the words in this question for a moment and get to the intent. The Latin Mass of the 1962 Missal is older and most Catholics for most of Catholic history would have been familiar with it. I don’t know how old the Ge’ez rite is nor the Maronite, but the fact is that Sacred Tradition does not appear to be homogeneous. When we talk tradition, the first question should be “whose tradition?”

Sacred Tradition should be changed as little as possible and as it happens, the Latin Mass has not changed in all these years. What is happening is it is being suppressed in favor of a different tradition that is from the Catholic Church and so is no less sacred.

It’s fitting here to remember that we are peasants, and that liturgical squabbles are far above and beyond the scope of our influence or reach or understanding. What would be good is to go to Mass at the Church that we like and invest deeply there. Whatever the liturgy is that is there, make sure it’s something you can stomach. Communicate with the Pastor about what you can do to help safeguard the liturgy you prefer. Give generously in the collections at the Mass that you prefer. And beyond that–stay put. Lay down roots. Don’t uproot every time a decision is made you don’t like. Only the people that weather the storms get to shape the future. The people who leave at the drop of a hat are just more debris in the wind.

2. What is the Value of Aesthetics in Liturgy?

Aesthetics is very important. Aesthetics essentially means “style” or “appearance” or “the look of things”. The liturgy should be beautiful because it is both good and true. A beautiful liturgy is a beautiful offering to God. No Catholic liturgy is truly ugly, but the liturgy that has absent many beautiful accidents is just a less ornate offering to God. It is not an unfitting offering, nor is it an ugly offering.

Here’s where it is important to be careful. The Latin Mass is objectively beautiful. It is also objectively more beautiful than the Novus Ordo. That doesn’t mean that it is better for souls because any valid Mass is good for souls. We don’t want to become aesthetic gluttons–snobs–we want to focus on what is important. What is the important thing about the Mass? It is the Holy Scriptures. It is the Eucharist. That’s really it–the two liturgies within the liturgy. Are you getting fed? If yes, nothing else matters. Nothing else should matter.

In Conclusion

Liturgy Wars are really preference wars, but we have no say and no influence and it’s all a big hubbub over nothing. Go to Mass where you like. If you prefer the Ge’ez rite, go there. If you prefer Latin, go there. If you prefer English, go there. Choose your language, choose your liturgy, and go there. Invest deeply. Focus on the things that matter. Don’t forget to love your neighbors–they are prodigal sons too, just trying to make sure they have found the right home.

AMDG

CDXXXI – Dispatches From Customer D411

I have been wading deeply through bureaucracy recently. Today […] I went to the DMV to get drivers license […]

Bureaucracy is such an interesting phenomenon in human life. I wonder if it is required or if it is an emergent property of modernity.

Bureaucracy industrializes human effort. Customer fills out forms–might as well be punching cards for a Hollerith tabulator–and submits them to the exacting gaze of people who spend all day every day looking at these same forms and looking for inconsistencies. It is a non trivial task to move to a new state, and I certainly had no idea all the things that were required when […] I made the decision. [I] don’t regret the decision by any means, but the bureaucracy makes it very difficult–prohibitively difficult on the margins, I am sure–to cross bureaucratic boundaries.

What is the alternative? We need to tell our administrators we owe a debt to a different Caesar. What kind of structure would allow this to be done without bureaucracy? Can bureaucracy be prevented at all?

The question is who is responsible for doing the work. It is definitely conceivable that we could tell one person one time and the worker bees behind the scenes file everything that needs to be filed. But that requires much more government administrative staff. Bureaucracy exists to put the responsibility for all the work on the citizen and all the responsibility for checking their work on the administrator. It minimizes staff–there is clearly an efficiency here otherwise bureaucracy wouldn’t exist.

What is the least number of forms that could be filed, requiring the least amount of staff to process?

It’s an interesting thought experiment, if nothing else.

AMDG

CDXIX – The Problem Of Experts And Obedience

I have become an ironclad defender of the Church, over the last year. I am not her best defender, nor am I her most articulate defender. But upon seeing some controversy, I felt compelled to speak in defense of Holy Mother Church and in defense of obedience to her mandates. Doing so created in me a firm resolve to continue to do so.

I have also been a snarky critic of secular experts. I found the COVID chaos to be ridiculous, I found the knee jerk reactions of administrators and bureaucrats to be disheartening, I found the unmitigated drama of much of the populace’s reaction to these administrators and bureaucrats to be exhausting and misplaced.

It has occurred to me that there is a potential contradiction in these two positions so I wanted to sort it out for myself and for you before either of us got confused.

What’s wrong with Experts?

Secular experts–usually scientists, ancient politicians, or moneyed interests–have an agenda when they speak. What it means to have an agenda is that whatever area they have an expertise in is being deployed to accomplish some political objective. Take, for example, a climate scientist speaking on the subject of climate change. Climate Change is a highly politicized topic, because Government is trying to justify it’s engagement in addressing climate. A climate scientist speaking on the subject of climate change might have an agenda when speaking. What he will say is sensible facts about the situation based on his observations–observational anecdotes cannot be contradicted. What he will suggest is a political outcome: some law ought to be passed, some tax levied, some bureaucracy established to support the amelioration of the observational anecdotes. To fully abridge what the climate scientist is saying, it would be something like, “I have authority by my credential as an expert; I can tell you my observations; my observations lead me to support an increase in taxes.”

That’s it. Secular experts are trying to accomplish political ends and their credential is intended to pre-suade and not reinforce their argument. To Pre-suade is to put someone in the disposition of believing what you say before you say it. Because a climate expert is a doctor from a prestigious university with many years of experience then the average listener might be pre-suaded to believe them on whatever topic, no matter what they say.

Criticism of this brand of experts is well placed. A proper deployment of expertise would be something like being an expert witness in a court case. Your comments are restricted to data-supported observations of some kind, you do not suggest an outcome to the trial nor do you offer a suggestion of guilt or innocence. An expert witness will speak to the data without suggesting a conclusion unless the conclusion can be firmly supported by the data. To be clear–this is empiricism which has been restrained.

Wait a minute, aren’t Bishops Church Experts?

The difference between secular experts and Church authorities is that you have a concrete and definite duty to obey Church authorities, a duty which you do not have with secular experts. The Church authorities have a reciprocal duty of custodial care for you, which the secular experts do not share. So Church authorities are a different kind of expert. You should listen to them not because they are experts but because you are bound by the Church to be obedient to the hierarchy within the Church.

Church authorities are not the same kind of expert as the secular experts. When Church authorities speak, they do not have an agenda the same way secular experts have an agenda. Church authorities agenda does consist (or ought to consist) of protecting and preserving the lay faithful, of leading the laity to heaven, and of promoting peace and concord within the Church. They are tasked with caring for the spiritual wellbeing of every soul (and not just the Catholic ones) in their jurisdiction–parish, diocese, or province.

Disdain for Church authorities qua expert is always misplaced. They are speakers for God, while also being imperfect humans. While imperfect and human, they have received specialized training and education making them well informed in matters pertaining to the spiritual wellbeing of the souls in their jurisdiction. They have not received specialized training and education for all matters, primarily just the spiritual ones.

So what’s the difference?

The agenda spells the difference between a secular expert and a Church authority. Secular experts are trying to accomplish political goals; Church authorities are trying to help you accomplish spiritual goals.

So, buy your priest something nice, and tell him Thank you, if you haven’t done so in a while. He’s praying for you more than you realize.

AMDG

CDXVII – Pope Benedict’s Last Laugh

[…] reading Esther last night–[…]. There’s a section in Esther where Xerxes of Babylon orders the death of every Jew, and Esther tells her Uncle and her Jewish community to fast and pray, and she prepares herself to confront the King and prepare for the possibility of Martyrdom.

It struck me–why is this whole event even documented? Why would God allow this to happen, let alone call us to remember it forever by including it in Holy Scripture?

God has a funny way of getting the last laugh out of the Bible’s villains. The Pharaoh of Exodus comes to mind: we really ought to be grateful for his hardness of heart, because it helped give us a beautiful, compelling, incredible demonstration of God’s love for us. Pharaoh, Xerxes, whoever persecuted the Maccabees (I am woefully poorly read on the Old Testament, something I really need to fix), Pontius Pilate–shoot, even us when we consider the Crucifixion–God has a way of taking the bad guys and enshrining their error in Gold and using it to save us. I bet each of those esteemed people (yes even us) hoped we would be remembered by history for something else. Maybe Pharaoh wanted to be remembered as a magnificent leader; maybe Xerxes as wealthy and as powerful as a god. Yet the thing that they will be remembered for in written history until the end of time is their big mistake.

So the Ann Barnhardt’s of the world–buckle up. If scripture is any lesson, your big mistake is going to be turned on its head and framed in Gold and all of Christendom will remember you forever for being wrong; and the fact that you were wrong will actually help preserve the Church even longer and stronger.

The Church just can’t lose.

AMDG

CDIX – Pope Benedict Dunking on the Haters

I just saw a headline that said Pope Emeritus Benedict is very sick. I am sure the Betty-BiP’s out there are swirling. One of my least favorite things about the pontificate of Francis has been the near-schismatical and certainly unhelpful discussion surrounding Pope Benedict. So let’s start by praying for Pope Benedict’s health, wellness, holiness, and for the conversion of all those good Catholics who have been taken in by the toxic “Benedict-is-Pope” discussion.

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and Blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen!

Second, let’s think about what would happen if–heaven forfend–our dear Pope Emeritus should pass on to life everlasting.

The current position is that Pope Benedict is the true Pope and Pope Francis is an anti Pope. To be unequivocal: This is not true. The Church proclaims Francis as Pope. The Church would have to declare him not the Pope–I am not going to prefer the opinion of internet pundits to the teachings of the Church.

If Pope Benedict dies, the first recourse of the people taken in by this belief should be to bend the knee to Pope Francis. They will have no other options and no alternatives. This would mean all of their sound and fury would signify nothing, and that’s OK. Welcome back, prodigal friends!

The second option would be schism–this is by far the worst option. They have doubled down so hard on Francis not being Pope, that they would rather insist on unreality than acknowledge the true Church. The worst flavor of this worst option would be that they appoint for themselves, somehow, a new Pope to take the place of Benedict. I am not even sure how they would do that, but that would be both comically absurd and spiritually horrifying.

The third and stupidest option is that they do nothing, which is entirely likely. They would probably bluster and wail and gnash online in the days following Pope Benedicts inevitable but hopefully distant passing from this life. And then quietly they would stop posting. Some may never stop referring to the Current Pope by his pre-Papacy Christian name. And when inevitably (and God willing, distantly) Pope Francis passes, they would accept the new Pope and pretend to have been on the team all along.

There’s a few loud proponents of the BiP theory, and how they react in the days following the death of Pope Benedict will be highly influential on the souls of the scores of people who follow them closely. Pray for them, that they see the best and most unifying path is with the Church, with Truth, and with the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis.

AMDG

CDIV – Tyranny of Belief, Part 1

Tom D invited some interesting clarifications in my previous article, and DavidtheBarbarian suggested my response ought to be an article unto itself. I am going to just copy and paste the comment and add some light edits and additional thoughts which came to me after the fact. In writing this I realized my additional thoughts expanded substantially so I took them out and put them in their own article, to follow.

Thank you, all, for the ever interesting discussion here at the Times-Dispatch!

Tom D, Let me answer your question with a question: If you don’t think your beliefs are so good everyone should have them, why do you have those beliefs?

Consider it using game theory.

Player A has an idea which he believes is a good idea, he thinks it accomplishes some arbitrary goal, he thinks it would accomplish some arbitrary goal faster if other people shared it.

Player B has an idea which he believes is a good idea, he thinks it accomplishes some arbitrary goal, but he does not think he should tell other people about it.

In the pursuit of some arbitrary goal, who do you think will accomplish their goal faster? Which idea do you think will survive longest? Probably the idea professed by Player A, right?

Now introduce Player C, who has an idea which he believes is a good idea, but his idea is to prevent the completion of the above referenced arbitrary goals, and he would more effectively prevent that goal if other people shared his idea.

Which Player has a chance at still accomplishing their goal? Player A has a fighting chance, because Player A is playing the same game as Player C: persuading people to share their idea. Player B is not playing the same game, and will be ignored and irrelevant to the pursuit of some arbitrary goal.

If the arbitrary goal is “Social stability” or “maximum freedom” or “virtuous society” or “high taxes” then people who take the Player A strategy will be in a position to increase their goal, or people who take the Player C strategy will be in a position to prevent that goal. Player B strategy will not move the marker on social stability, maximum freedom, virtuous society, or high taxes.

All that being said: There’s no neutral policies either. All policies–or ideas, or positive decisions of any kind–are by their very nature exclusive of things that violate those policies. The only reason some policies might seem neutral, it’s because there is a common cultural agreement that they are sensible. Take a law prohibiting murder: By definition, this law is restrictive and oppressive to murderers, but because society already agrees that murder is a bad thing, there’s no debate about it. When you take a more hotly contested legal situation–let’s say, Carbon taxes–then if it was implemented then it would be totally unoppressive to people who support the carbon tax, and totally oppressive to people who oppose it. All law of any kind is a discriminating dichotomy against somebody or something.

The desire to implement policies that preserve and maximize freedom is “classical liberalism”, of which I described Libertarians as the archetype, in the OP. My stance, and the stance I profess on this blog, is contra Classical Liberalism. This makes me unpopular among both right-liberals (republicans/conservatives) and left liberals (democrats/progressives) for different reasons. For a little more thorough discussion of this, see this article of mine which answers this question neatly.

AMDG

CCCXCIX – The Don Colacho

Speaking of Trump, I came across this aphorism by Don Colacho:

To substitute a democratic government for another, non-democratic government comes down to substituting the beneficiaries of the pillaging.

I am on the record as preferring Monarchy but being unwilling to do anything to make that happen. Don Colacho makes a salient point that changing from democracy to monarchy would merely change the beneficiaries of the apparatus of government.

The beneficiaries now are lowest-common-appeal mass-market liberals. Non-elected lifetime bureaucrats, and their civilian friends who serve the ends of liberalism. The beneficiaries in an idealized properly formed Catholic monarchy are the people who are properly invested in custodial care of the realm. This includes the Sovereign and his delegates, and an aristoi who’s wealth is directly connected to the well being of their people.

The choice is between, to use a microcosmic analogy, your boss taking your money or your dad. You have to serve both, but at least your dad uses his money explicitly with the intention of providing for you.

AMDG

CCCXCV – Christ the King of the Universe

November 21, 2022

Yesterday was the solemnity of Christ, King of the Universe. This feast always strikes me–it is one moment where we can afford our God a sense of grandeur. The King of England is bounded by the place we call England. The Holy Roman Emperor was bounded by political allegiance to the place. I’ve written before about how both people and things are subject to a Sovereign, and here we celebrate Christ as King of the Universe–not just the people, but the rocks and stones themselves.

It reminded me of this bit from Luke 22:

And there was also a strife amongst them, which of them should seem to be the greater.

And he said to them: The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they that have power over them, are called beneficent. But you not so: but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is the leader, as he that serveth. For which is greater, he that sitteth at table, or he that serveth? Is it not he that sitteth at table? But I am in the midst of you, as he that serveth:

I’ve written about this before, but it is worth repeating and expanding upon. I see in this verse an implied threat–or rather, a foreshadowing. He is among us (now) as he that serveth–but he will come (later) as he that sitteth at table. To put it flippantly, He is undergoing the greatest “undercover boss” experiment ever. He has come to perform His salvific work in humility, but the honor and glory due to Him as God will be won to Him.

He will come again not as Christ, sarcastically mocked as “king of the jews”–but as Christ, King of the Universe. And his coming will be so grand that even the stars will make way for Him.

AMDG

CCCLXVIII – The New Political Topography

Before I get too deep, I just want to acknowledge an obvious objection. “Scoot, why do you keep talking about this? Didn’t you learn from the drubbing you received before?”

The answer is that, yes, I did–but I really like to over-analyze interpersonal conflict. I don’t know why this is a character trait I have, but it is. I’ve had a lot of really fruitful introspection from brooding on points of conflict, so I consider it helpful. That’s what this post is about–it’s less trying to shill for my particular position vis a vis authority, but more trying to understand where everyone else is coming from and why these topics are particularly inflammatory. This post is not intended then as a critique, but as a “Here’s the world as I understand it”–and I welcome insight from those who disagree with my analysis or believe I have incorrectly characterized their positions.

I really like building frameworks, dichotomies, and lists, long time readers may have noticed. Here I have a list of dichotomies that explain the sources of disagreement especially pertaining to authority.

The first dichotomy is between Political Reaction (R) and Entrenched Establishment (E). Political reaction I characterize as the movement opposite and away from Classical Liberalism. The Entrenched Establishment representing the manifestations of classical liberalism which command modern life. This dichotomy is a sliding scale–some reactionaries oppose the left-liberal establishment, some reactionaries go so far as to be monarchists. There’s room for everyone at the reactionary table. Entrenched Establishment includes party line republicans, party line democrats, radical progressives, things like that.

I would say that Political Reaction is the single unifying feature of the Orthosphere. While various contributors and commenters have varying degrees on the Reaction side of the scale, I believe it is fair to say that all of them are on the reactionary side of things. The next two dichotomies are going to be a little more contentious I think.

The second dichotomy is between Tradition (T) and Innovation (I). This is an important point of divergence. The Tradition side of the equation argues, in short, that there is nothing wrong with the old ways and if we doubled down on them then things would improve. The Innovation side of the equation argues that the world fell apart under the watch of the “old ways” and we need new ways to lead us into the future.

This is a logical calculus on both sides. Traditionalism argues that things fell apart when we departed from tradition, so the innovators would make things worse. Innovators argue that things fell apart because of tradition, so doubling down on it would make things worse. These are mutually exclusive positions, and it is easy to see why they are mutually incomprehensible.

The third and final dichotomy is between Institution (S) and Revolution (V). This is an important point of divergence too, and it mirrors somewhat the previous one but is less about beliefs and more about practice and physical manifestations of those beliefs. Institutionalists believe that the existing institutions can be preserved and perfected. Revolutionaries believe that the existing institutions are too far-gone and must be overthrown and new institutions established.

This is also a logical calculus, and more directly reflects attitudes towards authority. Institutionalists are generally more accepting of authority and believe it can be perfected given adherence to their preference on the previous two dichotomies. Revolutionaries believe that institutions that fail should be eradicated because they no longer serve their purpose and only serve the members or beneficiaries of the institution.

You will notice I put letters next to the dichotomies so that I can refer to them in Shorthand. We have The R/E dichotomy, the T/I dichotomy, the S/V dichotomy. We can characterize different archetypes based on different combinations of these dichotomies.

I consider myself more of the RTS type. As a reactionary, I am in opposition to classical liberalism and modernity. As an institutionalist I believe the Church is the foremost institution and she must be preserved and defended and perfected. As a Traditionalist I believe the best preservation and defense of the Church is the Church’s own traditions.

The “romantic christians” as they are sometimes referred to, would be RIV types. As reactionaries they are also opposed to classical liberalism, but believe in innovating new solutions to the problems of classical liberalism and modernity. As revolutionary, they feel that some new structures are needed and old structures ought to be put to rest.

Most modern classical liberals would be EIS types. As Establishment, they favor the current classically liberal order. As Innovators, they believe in bringing to bear some new paradigm that is suitable for modern living. As institutionalists, they favor using their institutions–largely political institutions– to push these innovations to the masses. Republicans or conservatives might be considered ETS types, since they favor the established classically liberal order but only as it has been, and oppose new political innovations.

I have observed in comments some people I would characterize as an RTV type. As reactionary and traditionalists, they agree that the current classically liberal order is bad and that tradition holds the best answers, but believe that new political institutions (or perhaps even religious institutions) are required to bring about the reactionary-traditionalist vision.

You can contemplate on your own or in the comments the rest of the archetypes which three dichotomies suggest.

These dichotomies are valuable because they tell us about the new political topography. We should not draw allies and enemies based on whether you’re RTS or EIV. But these dichotomies help us to zero in on the point of disagreement–and the point of agreement. These dichotomies are also valuable to illustrate why so many oppositional interlocutors at the Orthosphere are incredibly wrong when they characterize that space as ubiquitously “republican” or “conservative” or “right-wing”.

Like I said, it is the reactionary attribute that seems to unify writers and commenters and thinkers at the Orthosphere. This is valuable to know because discussion centered around reactionary ideas will gather broad agreement. When discussing specific traditions, or discussing specific institutions, these will generate a lot of controversial discussion.

What do you think? I welcome your constructive feedback on this framework.

AMDG