Tradition is not subject to any standard, on the contrary, it is the standard by which to judge a culture.
Historical change, in the Traditional sense, is organic, since it develops according to the needs and nature of specific peoples. For example, the rupture between ancient Rome and Holy Rome is not as great as it may seem. Tradition is not subject to the more or less arbitrary verbal designations made by historians.
The Medieval system evolved out of the Roman system. What seems, at first glance, to be a radical transition from paganism to Catholicism (comprising both the Latin and Eastern churches), was perhaps, in fact, less disruptive. Cultured people, whether pagan or Christian, had the same education and shared the same values. (See Pagan Philosophers and Church Fathers.) Cultured Romans were educated in Greece; the effect was that belief in the gods was weakened and replaced with the more sophisticated theologies of Platonism and Stoicism. These then formed the basis of Christian theology.
Socially, the feudal caste system and the hierarchical structure of the Church were developments of Roman customs. In religion, statues and images were adopted from Roman paganism and the multitudinous gods and goddesses for every purpose were replaced by angels and patron saints. The Medieval chivalric orders consciously modeled themselves after great Roman military figures, and the Holy Roman Emperors regarded themselves as the legitimate heirs of the Roman Caesars.
One of the problems with the Middle Ages was an insufficient grasp of the principles of Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power, so the functions of the first two castes were blurred. The Popes acted as temporal power in the papal states and were often in conflict with the Empire. An Emperor, such as Frederick II, would have the Hermetist and astrologer Michael Scott as his spiritual advisor rather than an official representative of the Church. This would have the eventual effect of driving esoteric wisdom underground, further weakening Church authority.
It would seem, therefore, that an effective return to Tradition in the West would involve an organic development from an earlier point, and not the wholesale replacement with an alien tradition.
Thank you for your answer.
It’s not that I ‘refuse’ to believe the Nicene creed, I suppose it’s more that I don’t currently feel wise or knowledgeable enough to know whether to accept it – I’m not sure if it would be one of the things that would survive as it is or need to be altered in a ‘revivified’ western religion. There are other elements of Christianity that at my current level of understanding at least, I dislike enough to make being outwardly Catholic problematic for me.
I read “The Prophecies…”. Tomberg is already on my reading list from your earlier posts. I’ll add Mouravieff.
Julian tried to reform paganism by introducing some Catholic practices. But it failed in the end, just as any human endeavour will fail in the end, unless revivified by conscious efforts at certain key points.
I want to distinguish between the Catholic church, by which people mean the visible leadership, and the Catholic religion was has been known for all time. The latter is what needs to be revivified, though most likely in some different form. We have mentioned over and over in our posts that neither faith nor science can claim ultimate authority; only gnosis or metaphysical knowledge can do that. Nevertheless, the vast majority of people will need to believe in something; there is nothing wrong with that since it is in the very nature of things. Yet the few cannot be asked to believe something for its own sake. My only warning is that if you refuse to believe the Nicene creed, then also refuse to believe anything else whatsoever.
There are two questions to ask of a religion or worldview: (1) Does it contain a complete metaphysical doctrine, even if only symbolic, that is accessible to initiates, and (2) is there a viable spiritual practice that can lead to the understanding of that doctrine. The Catholic church used to have a reasonable metaphysics up to Thomas Aquinas (although his understanding of non-being was incomplete) and the fact that there are centuries of alchemical writings couched in Christian terms indicates there must have been an efficacious spiritual tradition. Two interesting works by Christian Hermetists — Valentin Tomberg and Boris Mouravieff — each claiming to be bringing early Christian teachings to light have appeared in the past generation. Whether or not this will amount to anything is far from obvious.
As for alternatives, I suggest you start by reading the pieces titled “The Prophecies of Rene Guenon”. They are close to what you are suggesting.
What’s your opinion of Julian the Apostate?
I recognise that there was/is continuity in Christianity, or at least some parts of the religion of the middle ages, with ‘paganism’. But I feel that perhaps Tradition would have endured longer in a healthier form if Julian had lived longer and his reforms had lasted.
It does seem that the torch of Western Tradition is held by the Catholic/Orthodox churches, but is burning very weakly – possibly only smoldering ashes?
Whatever the case, it would be very difficult for me to convert to Catholicism, since I intensely dislike lying and if I were asked if I accepted, for example, the Nicene creed, I would have to say ‘no’. So I will probably need to hop back on to the tiger’s back and hope for the successor tradition to arrive soon.
What could possibly inherit the torch of Western Tradition from the Catholic church and restore its vitality? Does the change have to be from the top down – such as a Pope with an open acceptance of hermeticism or a fondness for Vedanta? From lower levels of the Church or even from western non-Christians? Would it be another hybridisation with another tradition such as Buddhism, following the hybridisation with a sect of Judaism? Perhaps a Westernised Islam, along with Sufism for the initiatory element? Could the return be brought about by us Men of Tradition? If not, then by whom?